In a false advertising case, the Center objected to the settlement that gave class counsel $4.75M because it was based on an exaggerated value ($18.5M) of unidentified labeling changes. The district court approved the settlement, but reduced the fee request by $1.2M. The Center did not appeal.
The Center for Class Action Fairness successfully objected to the settlement of an antitrust case where the class would only receive injunctive relief of uncertain value while class counsel seeks $75 million in fees.
CCAF successfully sought discovery from class counsel regarding their lodestar (the actual time class counsel spent on the case) and their track record in other TCPA class actions. Discovery revealed that class counsel was requesting over $5300/hour for this case and was routinely compensated over $1000/hour, win or lose, for so-called "risky" TCPA litigation.
CCAF appealed the district court’s approval of a settlement over data marketing practices, from which class members cannot even opt out, and under which class members receive only injunctive relief that was forbidden by statute, while plaintiffs’ lawyers are awarded over $5.3M. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the settlement and the Center asked for rehearing.
CCAF objected in Poertner v. Gillette Co., a settlement of consumer fraud claims over Duracell batteries where the attorneys received $5.7 million and the class only $0.3 million, and appealed it to the Supreme Court, which unfortunately declined to review the case. CCAF’s objection, however, led class counsel to admit that the vast majority of consumer fraud settlements leave more than 99% of class members uncompensated.
The district court sustained the Center’s objection to a settlement over shampoo labeling where the class would receive valueless injunctive relief and the attorneys sought nearly $1M for themselves.
CCAF successfully objected to a settlement that paid $1 million to plaintiffs' lawyers and provided only $830,000 in coupons to class members.
Thanks to the Center’s objection, the parties negotiated a new settlement providing the class with more than $3 million additional recovery.
The Center’s client objected to a settlement over Southwest drink coupons given to “Business Select” passengers as a perk. Thanks to the Center’s involvement in the case, in 2017 the parties agreed to a resolution providing class members triple the recovery than would have been provided under the 2012 settlement agreement.
As a result of the Center’s objection, the parties modified the settlement to increase direct payments to the class by over $5.8M. Our second objection resulted in a third-party recipient of settlement funds that better suited the purpose of the litigation.
,_N401WN_-_LAX_(24891087549).jpg){kind=link}
