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.
Couris v. Lawson et al.
HLLI filed suit on behalf of Doctors Michael Couris and Michael Fitzgibbons challenging a California state law that restricts doctors’ First Amendment free speech rights by threatening disciplinary action against their license for discussing with patients anything about COVID-19 that the State views as “misinformation.”
In re Morgan Stanley Data Security Litigation
HLLI successfully represented an objector to a class action settlement where requested attorneys’ fees and expenses equaled to more than 33% of the settlement fund. Worse, the primary settlement relief is fraud insurance services for events that occurred 3-6 years ago, offered to a class where over 90% of the members already have had related services made available to them in other data breach settlements.
Stock v. Gray et al. [Missouri Board of Pharmacy]
HLLI filed suit on behalf of a pharmacist who challenges a new Missouri law that would prevent pharmacists in the state from communicating with physicians or patients to dispute the effectiveness of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for human use as a COVID-19 treatment.
In re Novo Nordisk Sec. Litig.
HLLI represented an objector challenging the fairness of a class action settlement that pays a third of the $100 million gross settlement fund to attorneys, instead of the customary 25%.
Hesse v. Godiva Chocolatier
HLLI successfully represented a chocolate consumer who objected to a largely-illusory settlement involving Godiva Chocolatier. The settlement would have paid class members like Lehrer conditionally at most $7 million. In contrast, plaintiffs' attorneys negotiated a fixed $5 million fund earmarked for their own fees.
In re Wawa, Inc. Data Security Litigation
Theodore H. Frank filed an objection to a class action settlement over a data breach of Wawa customer data, which would pay attorneys more than the class members they represent.
In re Broiler Chicken Antitrust Litigation
The settling attorneys argue they should be paid 38% of the $181 million settlement fund as fees and costs, which is nearly triple the percentage typically awarded in a settlement of this size. The fee request is also more than twice what one of the lead firms has bid as a percentage fee award in two other antitrust cases.
Gupta v. Bonta
Raj Gupta challenges a new California law that would curtail free speech around virtually every clinic, hospital, and pharmacy in the state.
Williams v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC
Theodore H. Frank objects to a class action settlement involving Neuriva-branded nutritional supplements that will pay class members perhaps one third of the $2.9 million fee request that plaintiffs’ counsel seek for themselves.
