Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, representing the objectors, also fought back against HP’s claims that the objections were brought in bad faith. Frank pointed to the existence of the retainer agreement and HP’s opposition to an advantageous motion to decertify the class.
Theodore Frank, of the non-profit Center for Class Action Fairness, has filed a motion contesting the ink jet settlement, seeking to disqualify the Cotchett firm from the H-P inkjet class action settlement. “It’s just a black letter ethical violation,” Frank said in an interview.
“I take no position on whether the size of the settlement fund adequately compensates class members for the value and risk of the litigation,” Frank said. “It does seem like a nuisance settlement, given Capital One's deep pockets, the large potential statutory liability, and the fact that most class members will not receive anything in the absence of a claim, which also militates for a much lower attorney fee. I haven't looked at detail yet whether the notice is acceptable.”
“Because Cotchett Pitre was lead counsel, the conflict of interest infects all of their co-counsel, none of whom bothered to notify this court of the conflict of interest, notwithstanding their affirmative obligation to do so under [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure],” the motion said.
.76 percent of battery buyers filed claims to receive $3 or $6. If all of those claims turn out to be valid, McComb said in the declaration, the settlement fund will disburse $344,850 to class members. But remember: The settlement is supposed to be worth $49 million — the number on which plaintiffs lawyers have based their fee request. Even counting the $6 million in Duracell products that will be distributed to charities if the settlement is approved and the injunction against false labels the defendants agreed to, there’s an awfully big gap between the alleged value of the deal and the actual cash benefit to the class.
RadioShack committed the sin of printing credit-card receipts with expiration dates on them, which exposed it to possible liability of $100 a receipt ($1000 if willful), a bankrupting sum. Class counsel settled for coupons. Our clients objected that the settlement did not comply with CAFA's limitations on coupon settlements, and was structured so that class counsel's benefit would outstrip that of the class.
In a unanimous ruling, the court agreed with objector Theodore Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness that Ware -- who is now retired, so another judge will reconsider the award -- "rubber-stamped" a deal that "structured to obscure actual relief" through Apple's agreement in advance to pay the suing legal firms up to $3 million of the award in attorney's fees and $100,000 in expenses, which the court said "cannot relieve the district court of its duty to assess fully the reasonableness of the fee request."
Thursday, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration under the appropriate legal standards, and was especially critical of the abusive appeal bond.
The Center for Class Action Fairness, in its objection, noted that the settlement seemed designed to discourage consumers from actually collecting anything. While Apple had electronic records of MacBook purchasers who had replaced their power supplies and most of the procedures were online, the lawyers required their clients to submit refund forms in writing.
University of Pittsburgh Law Professor Rhonda Wasserman has a paper on cy pres forthcoming in the USC Law Review, The paper discusses in detail two CCAF cases, In re Baby Products Antitrust Litig., and Marek v. Lane.
