Kumar v. Salov North America Corp., et al.
On July 7, 2017, the district court granted final approval of the settlement, even though more than 80 percent of the settlement fund would go to class counsel rather than the class members.
Birbrower v. Quorn Foods, Inc.
CCAF represented an objector to a settlement over allegedly mislabeled food that proposes to pay class counsel over half the settlement fund, $1.35 million ($2593/hour), while ensuring that the class receives virtually no benefit.
Gordon v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al.
As in the overwhelming majority of strike suits, the settlement in Gordon v. Verizon did not provide any monetary relief to shareholders. Instead, it provided immaterial supplemental disclosures and corporate governance change. Due to CCAF's objection, the court awarded a reduced amount of $1.5 million in fees and expenses.
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. State Street
A double billing error discovered by the Boston Globe and Ted Frank evolves into one of the most in-depth inquiries into securities suit billing. An appointed special master discovered undisclosed payment to attorneys who did no work in case, but plaintiffs' counsel tries to retain their $75 million fee. HLLI successfully argued for a reduced fee and defended the fee award on appeal as an amicus.
Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art
The class attorneys sought fees of $350,000, and the proposed settlement suffered from the further defect that the proposed relief benefits only future museum visitors, while the class is defined to include only past visitors—many of whom will not visit the museum in the future and therefore will not recover even nominal value from the proposed policy changes. Unfortunately, the settlement was approved over CCAF objection.
In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation
The Center for Class Action Fairness is challenging the legality of a class action settlement with Google that provides millions of dollars to the attorneys, and zero dollars to the class. Class members, who waive all rights to damages under the settlement, receive the same benefit whether or not they opt out.
Williamson v. McAfee; Kirby v. McAfee
CCAF objected to the approval of a settlement that allocates a disproportionate share of the settlement proceeds to the attorneys and has all of the hallmarks of an unfair, lawyer-driven settlement identified by the Ninth Circuit.
Adams v. USAA
CCAF was appointed as a special amicus curiae to defend the judgement of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, which reprimanded five plaintiffs’ attorneys for acting in bad faith for the improper purpose of forum selection.
Edwards v. National Milk Producers Federation, et al.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California adopted some of our objections, reducing the plaintiffs' attorneys fee request by 25 percent, from more than $17 million to $13 million.
Aron v. Crestwood Midstream Partners
CCAF appealed the approval of the settlement of a shareholder suit in which the plaintiffs' attorneys received $575,000, while the shareholders recovered only immaterial supplemental disclosures.
- Go to the previous page
- 1
- …
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- …
- 12
- Go to the next page