“I’m confident that one day this decade a different court of appeals will disagree with one of those Posner opinions, the Supreme Court will take up the circuit split, and then tell us that Posner was right all along,” Frank said.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed to allow the Center for Class Action Fairness go back to court and challenge the actions of professional, bad-faith objectors.
“I’m confident that one day this decade a different court of appeals will disagree with one of those Posner opinions, the Supreme Court will take up the circuit split, and then tell us that Posner was right all along,” Frank said.
Earlier this week the Center for Class Action Fairness filed a motion to intervene and seek disgorgement from for-profit “professional objectors” in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., a case dealing with allegedly deceptive marketing practices by makers of health supplements. The Center became involved in the case in 2014 when it objected to a class action settlement that would have provided attorneys $4.5 million but less than $900,000 to the class. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit agreed and reversed approval of the…
“[T]he cacophony created by shoddy objections brought by bad-faith objectors,” the lawsuit states,” interferes with a court’s ability to fairly consider the reasoned good-faith objections brought by the Center.”
A plaintiffs’ attorney and an insurance executive have created a business, Risk Settlements, that offers a “post-lawsuit settlement insurance product specifically designed to manage settlement risk, cap exposure and provide certainty to the uncertain world of class action settlements.” That this business model is viable—and that it purports to save class-action defendants millions of dollars in claims-made settlements—demonstrates the need for courts to provide scrutiny of what class-action settlements actually provide consumers.
Judge Posner agreed with little of what the lower court determined, but he found the trial judge's refusal to consider the cy pres amount in calculating the class benefit correct "for the obvious reason that the recipient of that award was not a member of the class."
Posner, ruling in favor of objectors in Pearson v. NBTY, outlines a series of conflicts and deceptions that any class-action lawyer worth her salt would sue over in an instant. But in this case it was the lawyers who perpetrated them, with the help of a judge who was all too willing to overlook the economic realities of the consumer class-action business.
See the opening brief for what "is perhaps the best 13,000-word summary of CCAF philosophy."
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.
