On July 29, 2016 the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the $14 million fee request by attorneys in a coupon settlement over Justice clothing store sales was excessive under federal law and that only $5.3 million could be currently justified. At the conclusion of the coupon redemption period, the objectors CCAF represents moved to disgorge pay-offs that had been made to self-interested so-called "professional objectors."
In a victory for CCAF, the district court denied approval of the settlement. From the bench, and for many of the reasons discussed in Barton's objection, the Court observed that the proposed settlement provided little to no benefit to the national class and, thus, class members were better off retaining their rights than settling for the relief provided by the settlement.
In a victory for consumers, the Center for Class Action Fairness successfully objected to an abusive class action settlement in a case about the length of Subway’s “footlong” sandwiches. The proposed settlement benefitted only nine people in the class but awarded more than half a million dollars to the class attorneys.
Class counsel sought 30% in fees -- over $45 million -- from the $150 million mega-fund and justifies the request with a lodestar that is both inadequately supported and based on numerous forms of over-billing. The district court reduced the excessive fee request by $9 million.
CCAF challenged strike suit that provided meaningless disclosures, prompting Seventh Circuit to adopt “plainly material” standard in order to approve such settlements. “Strike suits affect over 97 percent of mergers, costing businesses millions. We hope other courts follow Delaware and the Seventh Circuit in taking steps to shut down this racket.”
The terms of the deal provided a $10 million fund to class members that, in reality, is unlikely to be exhausted, gave class counsel a disproportionate $6.75 million fee, and left a large subclass of class members with zero recovery.
The Ninth Circuit declined to find that an intraclass conflicts that preclude a finding of adequate representation. That said, the district court reduced class counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses by over $5.1 million, for the benefit of the class.
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.
