The HLLI blog reflects the views of individual attorneys who author each post. This commentary does not necessarily reflect the official position of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute.

Two important appellate briefs filed this week

The fundamental point—shareholder derivative suits should not be permitted to be maintained when they are designed to benefit the attorneys, rather than the shareholders—remains valid, and we believe this is the first case to present this principle in the shareholder derivative context.

Mazie Slater misquotes a case

In Dewey v. Volkswagen, the parties negotiated and the district court approved a settlement that violates Supreme Court and Third Circuit precedent, which makes reversal likely. What's a class counsel to do? Make up new precedent!

Festivus update

In the Toys "R" Us baby products antitrust case, the E.D. Pa. approved a settlement and fee request that pays $14M to attorneys and $8.1M to class members over our objection. Law.com describes it as a "24% recovery for the class"; if that's accurate, that raises the question why there will be another $13 million of payments to cy pres recipients not disclosed to the class instead of to the class. Aside from the fact of…

Ninth Circuit cy pres victory in Nachshin v. AOL

We've been at the forefront of noting the problem of abusive cy pres; originally intended as a last resort "second-best" way to benefit the class after resolution of a case where there is leftover money, too many class actions use cy pres as a first resort to exaggerate the class benefits, or to siphon some of those benefits to the class attorneys or the defendants or, shockingly, the judge. A couple of recent decisions…

Search this website Type then hit enter to search