We've appealed: we don't think that the Rule 23(e) and Rule 23(h) fairness inquiries are to be done sequentially. NBTY put $6.5 million on the table; class counsel structured the settlement so the class got only a tiny fraction of that money, and ended up costing the class $2.6 million when their excessive fee request reverted to the defendant. We filed our opening brief last week.
The settlement was structured to pay the attorneys double their lodestar but make it difficult for class members to make claims, and few of them did.
For all the plaintiffs' bar talks about "access to justice," many trial lawyers will not hesitate to run roughshod over a class member's right of appeal if they think it will short-circuit a meritorious appeal that would jeopardize an excessive fee award.
In each loss, a Justice has issued a separate statement intimating that the lower court had erred. That’s pretty remarkable.
One hopes that a class member who received a postcard investigates the unfairness of the settlement and retains qualified counsel to object.
On Wednesday, Bates sided with the objectors. He denied approval of the settlement, finding that it unfairly released class claims for monetary damages.
Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged the need for the Court to address the increasing use of cy pres settlements. He wrote, “…review of this case might not have afforded the Court an opportunity to address more fundamental concerns surrounding the use of such remedies in class action litigation, including when, if ever, such relief should be considered….In a suitable case this Court may need to clarify the limits on the use of such remedies.”
Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court will announce orders relating to two cert petitions we filed.
Procter & Gamble (but not the plaintiffs) filed an en banc petition seeking further review of the 2-1 decision striking down the ludicrous attorney-benefit-only settlement in Dry Max Pampers. CCAF filed its opposition yesterday. Similarly problematic to the Dry Max Pampers settlement is the case of Richardson v. L'Oreal, a pathetic lawsuit and settlement that seems to have forum-shopping shenanigans. CCAF attorney Adam Schulman filed an objection on behalf of a class member. One tactic class counsel engages in is…
