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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Class counsel misinformed class members that they could not obtain the relief provided by the class action settlement if they “opt out,” when the same benefits are available through settlements with the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission.
In a victory for CCAF, the new settlement provides a $700,000 fund, which will provide more than $500,000 to class members, as a result of the Center’s involvement in the litigation. The original settlement provided only attorneys’ fees and meaningless label changes to class members.
Professor Sean J. Griffith objected to a class action settlement that paid Pharmacyclics shareholders like him $0 while providing up to $725,000 in attorneys' fees.
On July 29, 2016 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the $14 million fee request by attorneys in a coupon settlement over Justice clothing store sales was excessive under federal law and that only $5.3 million could be currently justified. At the conclusion of the coupon redemption period, the objectors CCAF represents moved to disgorge pay-offs that had been made to self-interested so-called "professional objectors."
_%E2%80%93_Frontansicht,_1._Juni_2013,_Ratingen.jpg){kind=link}
