The proposed settlement provided class members with worthless injunctive relief, simply codifying labeling changes that Harmless Harvest voluntarily made in 2015, but would have provided $575,000 to attorneys and named plaintiffs. The court agreed with CCAF that the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and adequate.
Under the settlement, class members will receive $10 vouchers for use on Art.com's ecommerce sites. The settlement has hallmarks of the coupon-settlement abuse that Congress targeted with the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.
The parties reached a lopsided settlement in which the plaintiffs' attorneys recover $3.9 million while the class gets injunctive relief consisting of 22 words regarding Facebook's practices added to a Facebook help page.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
