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…
He has already picked up some wins, including a significant ruling in August in a class action against Plantronics and the company formerly known as Motorola Inc. concerning Bluetooth headsets. The Ninth Circuit rebuffed a deal that would have paid no money to class members but would have given $100,000 to four nonprofit groups dedicated to hearing loss and $850,000 to the plaintiffs’ lawyers. The lawyers are now back in the lower court, trying to hash out a new deal.
Welcome to those of you who found this page after reading the Wall Street Journal profile.
Ted Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness, had objected to the Bluetooth settlement and argued the successful appeal. The law is clear that the Dry Max settlement should also be rejected, and his organization will appeal if it isn’t, he said.
This week, we objected to a $0 settlement of the Pampers Dry Max class action.
The decision contradicts (and ignores) Bluetooth, Aqua Dots, and the Class Action Fairness Act, and applied the wrong standard of law in creating an essentially irrebuttable presumption of fairness for the settlement.
The Center for Class Action Fairness announced today its victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit objecting to a valueless class action settlement.
The decision provides yet more evidence that the real problem with these settlements lies with the judges who approve them. Class-action lawyers are peddling absolution to their targets: In exchange for a settlement that includes lucrative fees, they can obtain a court decree ending the possibility of any further litigation over the same claims.
The objectors then appealed to the 9th Circuit, which reversed and vacated the settlement."We agree that the disparity between the value of the class recovery and class counsel's compensation raises at least an inference of unfairness, and that the current record does not adequately dispel the possibility that class counsel bargained away a benefit to the class in exchange for their own interests," Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel sitting in Pasadena.
