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…
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.
