class actions settlements

In the 1998 case of Felzen v. Andreas, the Seventh Circuit suggested that it was looking for an opportunity to take action against derivative shareholder strike suits, suits where a shareholder purportedly sues on behalf of the corporation, but in reality is seeking legal extortion to drop the suit:

Rule 23.1 provides for notice to shareholders only in the event of dismissal or settlement, so that other investors may contest the faithfulness or honesty of the self-appointed plaintiffs; we do not doubt that this monitoring is often useful and that intervention to facilitate an appeal could be justified. Many thoughtful students of the subject conclude, with empirical support, that derivative actions do little to promote sound management and often hurt the firm by diverting the managers' time from running the business while diverting the firm's resources to the plaintiffs' lawyers without providing a corresponding benefit. Janet Cooper Alexander, Do the Merits Matter? A Study of Settlements in Securities Class Actions, 43 Stan. L.Rev. 497 (1991); Reinier Kraakman, Hyun Park & Steven Shavell, When are Shareholder Suits in Shareholder Interests?, 82 Geo. L.J. 1733 (1994); Roberta Romano, The Shareholder Suit: Litigation Without Foundation?, 7 J.L. Econ. & Org. 55 (1991); Mark L. Cross, Wallace N. Davidson & John H. Thornton, The Impact of Directors' and Officers' Liability Suits on Firm Value, 56 J. Risk & Insurance 128 (1989); Daniel R. Fischel & Michael Bradley, The Role of Liability Rules and the Derivative Suit in Corporate Law: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, 71 Cornell L.Rev. 261 (1986). The two shareholder-appellants in this case believe that the modest settlement, half of which will be paid to counsel, exemplifies this problem.

Unfortunately, the appeal in Felzen was thrown out on technical grounds, and no one has taken up the challenge, perhaps because it's more lucrative to agree to be paid off for withdrawing an objection to a bad settlement than for successfully challenging the bad settlement.

Until now. Plaintiffs brought a meritless derivative-shareholder suit over an alleged technical violation of the Clayton Act; the corporation found it cheaper to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $925,000 to go away than to defend the suit. But the shareholders get nothing, so they're worse off because of the litigation.

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, not only did they sue in the Northern District of Illinois, they sued a corporation where I own shares. After attempting to foreclose objections by mailing out notice three days before objections were due, the parties agreed to a new notice schedule, and I have moved to intervene and dismiss the action for failure to meet the Rule 23.1(a) standard for shareholder representation. The case is Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley, No. 09-5314 (N.D. Ill.) and the fairness hearing is August 27 in Chicago.

Today's a busy day (there were filings in three different pending objections and appeals, two of them by us), but we'll have to postpone discussion of those cases to note that, on Friday, the U.S. District Court in Kansas rejected the $0-for-the-class/$10M-for-the-attorneys settlement in the Costco Fuel case that we argued in April. Alas, the court ruled on narrow technical grounds and punted on some critical economic questions, so we might see substantially the same settlement again in a couple of months if the parties can jump through the hoops the court established—but if the settlement remains unfair and unreasonable, I'm sure the objectors involved will want to object again.

Our associate, M. Frank Bednarz (Chicago '09), did much of the work on the Costco briefing, so I'm sure Friday was special to him—not least because it was also his wedding day! Mazel tov to Frank and Meridith. Go buy them some light bulbs before Frank starts at his BigLaw job in Boston in a couple of months. When Frank gets to Boston, I bet he'll be the only person there who already has a winning $10-million brief under his belt.

Have you ever heard of structured settlements? If you are a recipient of a legal settlement, you may have to wait a long time before you get the entire amount. There may be instances wherein you cannot wait a long time. If you have a need for immediate cash, this is the option to take. You will not have to wait a long time.


There are various reasons why you may receive a settlement. These cases involve the death of a family member, injury, medical malpractice, work related injuries, defective products, etc. In these cases, there will always be settlements involved. These settlements are meant to pay for the damages that the recipient is going through.

Although you receive a significant amount of money for the damages done against you, you do not get the entire amount. You have to wait a certain period before you are fully paid. The time frame for settlement can take months, years, and even an entire lifetime. If there is a need to get immediate cash, there is no way to speed up the process.

There is a reason why you do not get the money right away. Due to the damages inflicted, you may not be able to make a living for yourself. You have been temporarily injured, or you may have been permanently injured. In any case, there will be no chance for you to make a living during recovery. This is the main reason why you do not get all of the money right away.

Payment in increments will make sure that you have enough to pay for things like medical expenses and your daily needs. This way, you are guaranteed a future for you and your family. However, there will be instances when there is an immediate need for the entire amount. This is when structured settlements will be needed.

The reasons for needing the money right away may vary. You may need it for a family member’s educational needs, mortgage payments, loan payments, payment for debts, etc. In these cases, monthly or yearly payments will not be enough. This is when you will need the bulk of the settlement.

With structured settlements, a firm will offer to buy these court settlements from you. The reason why they choose to purchase them is for long term monetary gains. They offer to give you the bulk of the settlement with a few fee deductions. This fee ranges from 10 to 30 percent of the total amount.

With this option, you do not get the entire amount. However, you get the bulk of money right away. With immediate cash at hand, you will have more options to satisfy your immediate needs. You will have cash to spend for educational purposes. You will have ready cash to spend for debts. You will money to spend for emergencies whenever you experience them.

You can never tell when emergencies may come. If you a recipient of one of these court settlements, you are in luck. No longer do you need to worry. You can now take the option of structured settlements.

The Ninth Circuit’s holding in Concepcion v. AT&T Mobility, barring an arbitration clause that prohibits class actions as "unconscionable," rests upon a belief in the exceptionalism of class actions, namely, that they are a uniquely superior form of dispute resolution the availability of which is necessary to vindicate consumer rights. But, as the Center’s experience indicates, class actions are far from an exceptional vehicle for providing consumers with meaningful access to justice.  Yesterday, the Center filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case of AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (No. 08-893) in support of the petitioners.  O'Melveny & Myers attorneys Brian Brooks, Charles Borden, and R. Seth Davis did a phenomenal job with the brief, and we're grateful for their help.  Public Citizen, which ironically represents the anti-consumer/anti-arbitration/pro-trial-lawyer side in the name of paternalism, has a page devoted to the case withf links and resources, though the weight of those links and resources is pro-paternalism; the left side of the blogosphere has paid far more attention to this case than the right side.  Among the briefs is one filed by a number of law professors I know and admire, including (but not limited to) Randy Barnett, Henry Butler, Richard Epstein, Michael Krauss, Geoff Manne, Michael Moreland, Larry Ribstein, and Josh Wright; it raises important points about unconscionability and freedom of contract.

Wednesday, August 4, Judge Patty Shwartz (D.N.J.) approved the Dewey v. Volkswagen settlement to which the Center for Class Action Fairness had objected.

In one sense, the decision is a partial victory for CCAF: one reason the proposed settlement was unreasonable was because of the plaintiffs' attorneys's unreasonable request for $22.5 million in fees. The court adopted some of our arguments that the plaintiffs' attorneys claim that the settlement was worth $141 million overvalued the settlement by assuming 100% class participation and double- or even triple-counting many of the class benefits. The court approved only $9.2 million in fees, a $13.c3 million reduction, though still a very healthy pay day of over $1100/hour for some of the self-appointed lawyers that negotiated a settlement that left a million of their putative clients in the cold.

Yet I still feel disappointment: though the opinion was 101 pages long, the court did not address our arguments that a million class members received nothing under the settlement, did not address our arguments that the settlement structure created impermissible intra-class conflicts, and did not address our arguments about the validity of the economic testimony finding value.  We argued that the settlement structure was impermissibly self-dealing; the court rejected that argument with a cite to a Third Circuit opinion that did not consider the argument we made.  The court's ultimate finding that the settlement was worth $69.3 million still reflects enormous inflation, given that only $8 million of the settlement reflects pecuniary benefits to class members; the court confused expense to the defendant with benefit to the class, encouraging future settlements that are structured inefficiently to maximize attorneys' fees at the expense of the both the class and defendants.  We were hamstrung by a jaw-dropping ruling by the court that there was no need for an objector to a settlement to cross-examine the plaintiffs' expert witness because the direct examination and the court's own questions had already asked the expert what he thought about our objection.  The cross-examination would have demonstrated severe contradictions between basic economic principles and the methodology used by the expert to calculate damages. That the court went on to entirely ignore our argument for why the expert report flunked Daubert was disturbing. All of this is reversible error in the Third Circuit: if nothing else, an appellate court cannot decide whether the rejection of an objection was an abuse of discretion unless the trial court expresses its reasons for rejecting the objection.

We have thirty days to decide whether to appeal, a decision we will make in conjunction with the four class members we represented in our objection.  Our decision may be made easier if the plaintiffs' attorneys appeal the fee decision, in which case we would cross-appeal at a minimum.