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.
Appleby v. Bowser
The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed suit against the District of Columbia, Mayor Muriel Bowser, and Attorney General Karl Racine to block the enforcement of the newly enacted rule banning wedding dancing, a unique form of expressive activity protected by the First Amendment.
Photo credit: Wikimedia.
Greenberg v. Lehocky
HLLI successfully filed a civil rights suit against the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to block implementation of a rule that would limit speech by Pennsylvania-licensed attorneys. HLLI unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court concerning the revised rule that replaces the one already found to be unconstitutional.
Ingram Publishing / Alamy Stock Photo
Rael v. The Children’s Place, Inc.
HLLI attorney Anna St. John objected to a settlement with The Children’s Place because it would pay attorneys over $1 million in fees while leaving class members with only small $6 coupons that few class members will use.
Gold v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.
CCAF's objector contended that only 25% of the cash fund should be awarded to the attorneys until the actual redemption rate of coupons is known. Prior to the fairness hearing, class counsel agreed to defer fees pending coupon redemption, thus resolving Faber's primary objection.
McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC
HLLI successfully represented an objector to the settlement of McKinney-Drobnis v. Massage Envy Franchising LLC, which provided only coupons to class members, including those who no longer subscribe to Massage Envy, while earmarking $3.3 million for attorneys' fees in cash.
Photo credit: Jour Sarah/Wikipedia
In re Conagra Foods, Inc.
CCAF successfully represented Prof. Todd Henderson, who objected to a settlement that provides him $4.50 and all class members put together less than one seventh of the $6.85 million attorneys' fee request, premised on a “$27 million” injunction that did nothing.
