In re Automotive Parts Antitrust Litigation
CCAF filed an objection on behalf of two car rental franchises to an an eleventh-hour request by attorneys to add $93 million to an already-generous fee award.
National Association of Scholars v. DOE
HLLI represent the National Association of Scholars, who challenge the U.S. Department of Energy’s requirement that researchers submit a DEI statement with applications for research grants.
Kansas, et al. v. Becerra (CMS staffing rule challenge)
HLLI suit challenging the legality of a federal regulation by CMS that threatens the health, safety, and well-being of millions of nursing home patients, by requiring nursing homes to hire more than 100,000 additional full-time employees, while providing no funding to support the necessary hires.
Smith v. Assurance IQ, LLC
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute an objector challenging plaintiffs’ counsel’s forum shopping tactics in settling a nationwide class action in a state court likely to award more fees out of class recovery than attorneys would get in federal court, where the action was first filed.
MacClelland v. Cellco Partnership (Verizon intervention)
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute represents four intervenors who are challenging plaintiffs’ counsel’s forum shopping tactics in settling a nationwide class action in a state court likely to award more fees out of class recovery than attorneys would get in federal court, where the action was first filed.
In re Advocate Aurora Health Pixel Litigation
HLLI represents an objector challenging a proposed settlement where class counsel seeks an outsized percentage of the settlement amount for themselves and which caps class members claims at pennies on the dollar.
Lundy v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute successfully represented an objector challenging a proposed settlement to the extent the court exercises the option to divert all or part of the $37 million fund to third parties rather than to the class.
Sharpe v. A&W Concentrate Co.
HLLI represents its director, Theodore H. Frank, in objecting to a purported “$15 million settlement” that in fact delivers perhaps $2 million to class members, and earmarks $3.2 million for attorneys’ fees.
Image Credit: Jorge Franganillo
In re: Altria Group, Inc. Derivative Litigation
Theodore H. Frank moved to intervene and reopen a shareholder derivative settlement approved in February, which would destroy at least $125 million in shareholder value.
In re All-Clad Metalcrafters LLC, Cookware Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation
HLLI challenges the fairness of a settlement that pays class counsel over 80% of the settlement fund, with only a few hundred thousand going to class members.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 11
- Go to the next page