“In a class action settlement with Citigroup shareholders, lawyers tried to direct a leftover balance from the settlement fund to advocacy groups that clash with the interests of class members,” said Ted Frank. “But now, after CEI objected to that unfair outcome, class attorneys have discovered a way to send those remaining settlement dollars to class members.”
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…
The biggest target of Frank’s ire, however, are settlements that award what he sees as excessive legal fees to the plaintiffs attorneys. He’s currently challenging the proposed $590 million settlement of a class action brought in 2008 on behalf of Citigroup Inc. shareholders who accused the financial giant of misleading investors about the risks of its derivative business.
CCAF objected to the fees in a securities class action in which class counsel sought an outsized percentage of the $590 settlement fund. Ultimately, the parties agreed to waive their cy pres provision in favor of distributing more money to class members.
