class actions settlements

Class Action

CLASS ACTION

The city is no different from a class action lawsuit settlement from each : peace and predictability of the parties involved in this case all the time, but within a reasonable time to load and uncertainty. However, the closure of a class action, the parties must observe certain procedures to connect to the class members. In addition, special arrangements of closing a class action. Class action settlement is very visible and the general rules of federal civil procedure 23, and 2005 (cafe) Act 2003 to make changes to the justice class action lawsuits (see sidebar on page 18, government officials, see related news). This is a very large pile of transparency and because of litigation, including class, many people criticize and object classes and the opportunity to check the details of the settlement. However, a lawyer experienced in class action lawsuits in both peace and predictability that they can achieve by following the steps outlined below.

1 I know the rules and processes.
Prosecutors are awaiting trial to critically examine each proposed class settlement. " Class guardian to act " in a proposed Class action settlement costs and subject to the district court considered, high maintenance tasks that require trustees to act. [ 1 ] a lawyer, and they should begin to consider approval of Class action settlement negotiation process with a clear understanding of rule 23 (e) set. Court rules and clear information about the court to ensure that the class in terms of the settlement are designed to protect the interests of absent class members to ensure that research.

2 Wise bargain.
Court, the class action as a result of the agreement, negotiated in a way to determine whether the long arm closer look. Lawyer settlement negotiations must keep detailed records of all debates as evidence of good conduct. Plaintiff class attorneys considerable negotiation, for example, the named plaintiffs represented by the accession negotiations to be ready to monitor the steps taken to ensure that the particular must be prepared to explain. In some cases, a lawyer wearing a mediator or other missing class to serve as a neutral set of eyes watched the interests of members want.

Especially the courts to see the completion of class action " reverse auction " signs produce - attorney's fees to the defendant in exchange generous with their agreement, usually an attorney willing to accept the lowest class recovery. This tactic hoping to disrupt other receivables by the defendant. The court will not accept product placement classes otherwise no problems. [ 2 ]

Similarly, the Constitutional Court, the court closely examined the " settlement " class action directed -. In the case certified for class early closure [ 3 ] There are lawsuits because the enemies of the extended exploration of the strengths and weaknesses of the case and the court will examine more closely the provisions of the settlement [ 4 ] Quick. so it has enough information to get the resolution you need to install a lawyer.

Settlement negotiations should also include the right person. Class members with different interests and representing the interests of class members could not quite all of the plaintiffs' attorneys, plaintiff attorneys identify appropriate representatives of potential sub - class, and that the settlement discussions. Similarly, settlement discussions with counsel, and consider them to be able to identify the opponents. In particular, the class advisor or attorney any deal would affect their actions on the object proposed class action lawyers representing each individual member would expect. Consumer groups and government agencies also consult with an interest in the case.

Finally, rule 23 (e) (2) requires the parties to disclose anything that could be considered as a side agreement. According to this agreement, the parties must refrain from discussing the terms you want to exclude any settlement.

3 The deal is a fair deal.
Judge, just to confirm that the Class action settlement, you need to find an adequate and reasonable settlement. [ 5 ] This decision by the circuit court for multi - factor tests are different from each other. Several factors are known :

the complexity and duration of the process
class settlement response
during prosecution
establishment of liability risk
the risk of formation damage
risks of maintaining the class action lawsuit
The ability of the defendants to withstand a large judgment
best recovery in the light of a reasonable range of settlement
a reasonable settlement process [ 6 ] in the light of all the attendant risks ranging

Settlement negotiations, lawyers enough evidence to confirm the agreement because the court refused to consider the evidence to reveal all the factors.

Lawyers should avoid cafe clarify some provisions of the settlement. Apparent " negative value " only " because they live close to the court in order to compensate the class members and class counsel placements for some class members lose more than others to get a settlement prohibiting " limit.

The court must examine cafe coupon settlements - buying a class member is relatively worthless paper, the class gift adviser wage cuts great. Lower coupon cafe, which is used as a dwelling, the fact that the value of the coupon redemption - redemption not guess -. Determining the value of the settlement to determine attorney's fees [ 7 ] until the end of time to redeem the coupon rate because it can not determine the amount of the award, the inevitable delay in the payment of the fee award would be. This delay and uncertainty of how many coupons coupons redeemed in federal court plaintiff lawyers are reluctant to enter into the settlement. Provision of dental cafe this may seem to prevent coupon settlements, legislative history, or individual members of the class request and provide real value coupon settlement is very small in some cases, for example, may be appropriate to explain.

When the class is not too big, too small, and the class members for the benefit of the recovery per class member exceeds the cost Cy pres relief management considered the possibility of individual completion. Cy pres relief court settlement proposed plaintiff class interests aligned with the interests of buyers make sure to examine closely.

Especially when the first action seeking damages, injunctive relief settlement, the steps and provoke questions about the value of the value of the release of claims. Therefore, the value of every size attorney should be prepared to present expert evidence.

Adverse court " Reverter " side to return unclaimed funds provide the defendant. Reverter cost side counsel lawyers as the basis for calculating the amount of the settlement received increased serving members of the class to ask for permission and give incentives to prevent.

Finally, the compensation will be given for different class members be prepared to justify the difference. Based on convincing evidence that the reason for the differences in the legal and economic analysis should include. If you do not have an underlying predicate distinction, completion vulnerable to attack.

4 Plan effective campaign.
The Parties shall meet the requirements of the rule must be the last notification. In 2003, rule 23 (c) (2) (B) notice, brief, clear and easy to understand language change requires. Advisory Committee Notes accompanying this change in the rules " reminder " to work unremittingly difficult task to communicate with class members is needed to explain the process in the same way the Supreme Court has set a high standard to meet. Parties to inform the class members actually "wants " in a way that reflects the news to give [ 8 ] In order to achieve this, you need to pay attention class experts to get the attention and read, and I realize that opinion.. [ 9 ]

You know the court and " the differences in the calculation to determine whether common enough to reach, " whenever possible [ 10 ] calculations Reach provides a logical and objective answer key questions :. How many members of the class grade is reported as a percentage of the universe.

And spread the word to achieve the following common mistakes :

Low range - do not show warning plan and 70 to 90 percent of the class to reach that size.
Targeted - Wall Street Journal, for example, the average consumer does not.
Geographically, the poor - class members Adver - tising live in a large metropolitan area to stay away from small towns to small and available as statistics prove negligible.
Announced the placement of the camera - just sign does not meet the cherry picking process can result in some newspapers.
Notice how this does not take into account the class members to learn - they are radio listeners, television viewers or magazine readers ?

The main purpose of the class action is a distinction without realizing it, for this reason, you need to make a conscious effort to design effective and "difference" Be careful. You need to grab the attention of the members of this class, and provides them to make them read can be influenced by, for example, highlighting compelling reasons to warn of potential recovery. A simple headline news and important - and why it's important for them to read, the firm - is actually a member of the settlement class will see the difference goes a long way for sure.

After the class notice, and plans to achieve well designed, rule 23 (c) (2) (B) enabled. This rule is a complicated mess notices on behalf of class members or the legal jargon language - designed to minimize manufacturing free. Instructions and the appropriate method for these rules, notifications, warnings about content models, although problems persist in showing www.fjc.gov published. For example, we often do not realize :

long
Scroll to the required information
Explain it lay
For the client tries to ask a lawyer
underestimate the defendant
informing about the completion of not selling
participate in the appeal or scare people opt out
Create class members of their rights for the disabled
linguistic, cultural and other barriers to create
Minimum class members and participation for

Successful news program, experts recall, the theme mentioned above designed, affordable, unobtrusive, understandable and can withstand collateral attack. [ 11 ]

5 Use all the tools available to let.
Class action in which the court must ensure that the notice is rapidly changing environment. Our population is increasingly mobile and new technologies resulting in a flood of information. A word of caution to face every day with thousands of other ads will be accepted by the members of the class. However, experts notice campaign designed to address these challenges.

About 14 percent of Americans to act as an annual, but only about 40 percent of people who report a change of address moving the U.S. Postal Service. Also, many people either temporarily or permanently displaced due to natural disasters such as hurricanes. To overcome these difficulties, such as your e - mail, and once again before the update service can not be delivered by postal mail and careful protocol can not be returned, make sure the re-employment expert.

More than 80 percent of U.S. adults are now connected to the Internet, and this number is growing. Today the vast majority of cases, a party independent of the class action website information 24/7, allowing members of the class requires. Gone are the days when the class members are expected to go to court to review the case file. Currently, the information available at the click of a mouse.

E - mail communication has become an increasingly popular form and e - mail notification once considered by lawyers. However, a notification via e - mail and the recipient's spam filters are carefully designed to address the Delete button. For example, the subject line of the e - mail notice to move and the appropriate return address. 23 is the best you e - mail notification rules " applied " must " individual notice to all members identified with reasonable effort " can be used to meet the mailing address when it may not have been formed.

There are two most common forms of radio and television commercials. Despite the increasing cost of media, such as the widespread fear, this method, where appropriate, to break the bank. If you're ready, radio and television can convey important information notice within 30 seconds. In addition, the broadcast program, to minimize the amount spent on advertising that will never see the class members can be developed to target.

Difference another way to achieve efficient abundant. Using press releases to inform the court in general, can help to confirm or through electronic media, public service announcements and the reliable news sources. Any news would lead you guarantee anything, but you can get an additional opportunity to learn about the rights of class members.

6 Note the attorney fees.
Lawyers in class actions and class more than once criticized as profitable. Therefore, the question of the integrity of the settlement class action Consultant cost concerns about the class once closely linked. Simply put, the challenge of inviting excessive attorney fee provision of housing.

Rule 23 (h) costs of each proposed class member attorney has a decent interest allows. Rules, Rule 54 (d) (2) by acting under the consultant's fee, require the plaintiff to make a request to the attorney. District Court hearing in May, but the findings of fact and conclusions of law should be. Class members must be given the right to move and objects. Rule is not specified, the notification must include costs and attorneys' fees sought [ 12 ] Significantly, the rule is 23 lodestar Hotfix 2003 or the funds must be used to approach the question of the award fee is not a percentage..

Even if there are no objections to the cost of the class more beneficial active participation judicial review occurs. In particular, the " net " provisions of sailing - the cost of a lawyer, in which he asked the defendant agrees not to contest - sometimes the problem is the courts. According to the indictment, while the fact that a lawyer for the class focus on results, it is clear sailing provisions to prevent and be prepared to provide adequate support for the court on charges of solicitation.

7 To set the user - friendly claims process.
The benefits of the settlement class members must be prepared for a very large number. Class members are entitled to the benefits do not jump through hoops to get. In addition, the appropriate response mechanisms, effective and affordable. Toll-free telephone number to access information on the internet or allowed claim form. Or exception in the application letter class members does not require its own appeal. Layout management, demand flawless execution and diligent few letters have been sent statistics how many, how many were returned to report back sent, received, and how to handle it considering how mail. Demand side management of vendor services, equipment, and phone systems, and can print and make sure that the large volume of email quickly. And the difference is only in the administrator does not introduce an effective method to make money in damage - mail request to find class members, such as a small print notice.

Every class action lawsuit settlement is unique and each offers challenges. However, the parties involved in the following seven steps to help secure peace and mortality should look.

CLASS ACTION

We've been very busy!

• In Fraley v. Facebook, the district court adopted our theory of attorneys' fees (zero value for injunctive relief and for settlement money paid to administrators); the parties, perhaps in response to our objection, upped the class-member award to $15 from $10. So a fee reduction of $2.5 to $3 million, with several million more available for the class. Not a bad day's work, and enough of an improvement that we're not going to appeal the parts of the decision the court got wrong.


• Speaking of whether class counsel should get a commission on money paid to the settlement administrator... You may recall the Ninth Circuit throwing out a bad settlement (in an opinion later modified) over Frosted Mini-Wheats that paid $800,000 to consumers, $2 million to lawyers, and some unknown figure to unknown cy pres. On remand, the parties set up a $4 million settlement fund—but $900,000 or so is earmarked for settlement administration. Is that a $4 million settlement, or is it really a $3.1 million settlement, because that's all the class can hope to get? Class counsel is "only" seeking $1 million this time, which is still disproportionate to actual class relief; meanwhile, the objectors who turned the $800,000 in class relief into over $2 million of class relief aren't being given anything. This morning, I'll be at the fairness hearing in San Diego, presenting the CCAF objection of Chicago Law professor Todd Henderson. Class counsel's main argument against us is that we're funded by the Koch brothers (not remotely true), and therefore we should be ignored. One wishes that California attorneys like Tim Blood suffered some repercussions for simply lying to the district court, but there doesn't seem to be the taste in California courts to enforce Rule 11, as we learned when we were similarly lied about in EasySaver.


• We filed a cert petition appealing our Second Circuit loss in Sirius. I'll write a longer post about that, plus our amicus support.


• Another case that merits a longer post is a fascinating Eighth Circuit brief we filed last week in an appeal of a $2.6 million cy pres award.


• Speaking of bad cy pres (and bad coupon settlements), we filed our opening Ninth Circuit brief in EasySaver Rewards ($8.85 million for attorneys, $3 million for local cy pres, $225,000 and worthless coupons for the class) in July.
   
• CCAF attorney Adam Schulman filed an objection to the horrendous settlement in Berry v. LexisNexis, which is like Dry Max Pampers, but far worse, with a larger class and the attorneys asking for $5.5 million. This merits a longer post, but we were honored that a passel of very highly-paid attorneys representing a competing class action and their objectors saw fit to adopt so many of our arguments.


• In Pearson v. Target Corp., class counsel is seeking $4.5 million for a settlement over glucosamine sales likely to pay less than half of that to the class. I am a class member, and CCAF attorney Melissa Holyoke filed an objection on my behalf.


• In the Southwest Drink Voucher case, the court approved the settlement, but hasn't ruled on the attorneys' fees yet. We're deciding whether to appeal.


• Cato filed an amicus in support of our cert petition in the Facebook Beacon case.


• More press coverage than you can shake a stick at. And I did a lengthy "Liberty Law Talk" podcast with Richard Reisch about class action abuse generally.

Given that one of our attorneys is pregnant, another is getting married, and a third is moving, we're being very productive, though of course, we've had help from pro bono counsel.

A class action accusing local McDonald's in Dearborn County of falsely advertising its chicken as "halal" was settled. A class member, Majed Moughni, an attorney, wrote a Facebook post complaining, inter alia:

McDonald's was going to pay $700,000 for selling "Haram" chicken sandwiches and labeling it as "Halal". The current lawyer on the case wants the the [sic] majority of the money to go to a medical center ($275,000) and a museum ($150,000), that lawyer Kassem Daklallah, wants to pocket $230,000 and the plaintiff, Ahmed Ahmed will keep $20,000. We think the money should go to you, the people who were lied to and bought and ate "Haram" chicken sandwiches, not a medical center or a museum who were not injured. ...

This seems a reasonable criticism: after all, the class is relatively small (observant Muslims who ate at the particular McDonald's restaurant), so distributing $425,000 to claimants is feasible. And, as Baby Products and the American Law Institute confirm, cy pres should be the last resort (rather than opening gambit) in a settlement. If Daklallah, his law firm, McDonald's, or their attorneys have preexisting relationships with the cy pres recipients, that would be even worse, because then the cy pres would be illusory relief. A $20,000 proposed payment to the class representative in a $0 settlement is further evidence of self-dealing.

At plaintiff's request, the Michigan state court enjoined Moughni, and forced a change to the Facebook page to put forward Ahmed's preferred view of the case. This is a scary First Amendment violation, and that the court signed off on it makes one wonder whether the court can fairly adjudicate objections to the settlement. Public Citizen is on the right side in this one, and, along with the ACLU, is litigating in favor of the objector's rights. [Public Citizen; Dan Fisher @ Forbes; Detroit Free Press]

(Of course, there are certainly strong arguments against using the consumer fraud laws to mediate a religious dispute. If the lawsuit reflects a disagreement over what constitutes "halal," courts shouldn't be adjudicating the religious question. If the lawsuit reflects an objectively false claim that a particular organization certified the food as "halal," then that's a legitimate complaint. But even if the possibly fatal flaw in the lawsuit means the settlement is necessarily small, that is no excuse for the attorneys, class representative, and unrelated third parties to capture the entirety of the value of the settlement.)

Public Citizen and the ACLU are taking no position on the fairness of the settlement, which makes sense for the strategic purpose of focusing on the First Amendment issues. Since we're not involved in the case, and will not be representing any clients in the Michigan proceedings, I hope that even the attorneys who negotiated this awful settlement will concede I have the right to speak about what I think is a breach of fiduciary duty to their clients.

Southwest gives away "premium drink" (i.e., "beer") coupons worth $5 to customers who buy a Business Select ticket. Of course, not everyone drinks, and half of the coupons are thrown away. After giving out 11 million or so of these coupons, Southwest changed its policy and held that the premium drink vouchers were only good on the day of the flight for which they were sold. A class action was born, alleging bait and switch. There's a lot of publicity over the settlement; Southwest Airlines is giving away new coupons, i.e., free beer. Press coverage accepts the claim of class counsel that the coupons, which will expire in a year, and are only good in flight, are worth "perhaps more than $29 million"; papers in support of the settlement go even further and ascribe a value of up to $58 million. Thus, the attorneys will ask for $7 million. [preliminary approval order; Chi Trib; L&S; h/t LAN3]

Thing is, we know from decades of history of coupon settlements that less than $1 million of these coupons are going to get used; heck less than $1 million are likely to be claimed. The settlement is worth "perhaps more than $29 million" only in the sense that "perhaps" the atoms in the chair you are sitting on will all simultaneously shift one foot to the left. Customers are getting notified by email, but the vouchers aren't being sent to them by email. That's because Southwest wants to limit its liability, but the attorneys want to maximize their payout; they both have the incentive to exaggerate the true value of the settlement. If they told the court the settlement was worth less than $1 million to the class, the court might ask questions why a disproportionate share is reserved for the attorneys; if they asked the court to follow the strictures of the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires attorney awards to be tied to the value of redeemed coupons, the attorneys would have no chance at $7 million.

One hopes a class member sees through this misleading unfairness, and finds pro bono counsel willing to object.

 The class consists of "All Southwest customers who purchased an Eligible Drink Voucher through the purchase of a Business Select ticket or otherwise, during the time period before August 1, 2010, but who did not redeem the Eligible Drink Voucher. The Class does not include Southwest customers who obtained drink vouchers or drink coupons through the Southwest Rapid Rewards program, unless those customers separately purchased, but did not redeem, Eligible Drink Vouchers through the purchase of a Business Select ticket or otherwise." The case is In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation, No. 11-cv-8176 (N.D. Ill.).

Alison Frankel recently asked whether it's the end of "money-for-nothing" class actions; Ronald Barusch asks a similar question. The Center for Class Action Fairness is putting that question to the test in In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation by asking the District of New Jersey to dismiss shareholder litigation that makes cosmetic changes to corporate governance, and then presents a $10.45 million bill to shareholders—150% of the already high "lodestar"—for the involuntary consulting arrangement. As in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley, the suit "serves no goal other than to move money from the corporate treasury to the attorneys' coffers.... It is an abuse of the legal system to cram unnecessary litigation down the throats of firms ... and then use the high costs ... to extort settlements (including undeserved attorneys' fees) from the targets." As I noted then:

Under FRCP 23.1(a) and its state-law equivalents, a shareholder derivative suit isn't supposed to proceed unless the shareholders bringing the suit adequately represent the shareholders. If the suit is meant to profit the plaintiffs' lawyers at the expense of the corporation (and thus the shareholders), how can the bringers of a strike suit be adequate representatives of the shareholders? I've thus argued that the correct role for courts in such situations is to throw these cases out entirely (or approve the settlement but award only a token amount in attorneys' fees).

Good coverage at Forbes.com (noting that the lawsuits themselves are free-ride piggybacking off of J&J self-disclosure and government investigations) and Reuters (quoting plaintiffs' lawyers calling the motion "frivolous").

The Class Action Fairness Act puts limitations on coupon settlements. In In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation, however, the district court approved a settlement that would pay $5.2 million in cash and $8.9 million in Walmart.com coupons to the class and held CAFA did not apply because the parties called the coupons "gift cards." Does the Class Action Fairness Act regulate semantics or something more? I argue the latter in a Ninth Circuit opening brief filed today.

The district court also awarded a disproportionate $8.512 million to the attorneys. Our appeal addresses that issue as well. And because I miss Lionel Hutz, the brief cites the classic case of Homer Simpson v. The Frying Dutchman Restaurant.

When attorneys affiliated with CCAF first objected on behalf of Professor Michael Krauss in the Classmates.com settlement, that case paid $52,000 to class members and over a million dollars to the attorneys and the class representatives (while falsely characterizing it as a $9.5 million settlement); Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN called it the worst class action settlement of the year. We objected, and the court struck down the settlement. The parties went back to the drawing board without including us in the process, and they came back with a settlement that guaranteed $2.5 million for class members, while still paying the attorneys over a million dollars. The settlement, as we pointed out in a second objection, still overpaid the attorneys and had Bluetooth reversion problems to boot: any fee reduction, notwithstanding clear sailing, would go to the defendant rather than the class. The parties quickly eliminated the kicker: now any fee reduction would go to the class, and the judge agreed with us at the fairness hearing that there should be a fee reduction.
Given that we had won over $2 million for the class, we thought we might be entitled to a token fee award; given our non-profit status, we planned to ask for something in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, reflecting both the benefit to the class and a sub-lodestar amount for multiple rounds of briefing, two trips to Seattle for fairness hearings, and the cost of hiring local counsel. But before we even put pen to paper on the fee request briefing, class counsel retaliated against us for our success in objecting by hitting us with super-burdensome fishing-expedition subpoenas, on, inter alia, a conspiracy theory of cross-referencing our donors with donors to institutions where Professor Krauss had performed work, such that someone paid Cato ten years ago to have Krauss write a paper so that he would successfully object ten years later represented by attorneys affiliated with CCAF to a settlement of a lawsuit against a company that didn't even exist yet. (Dozens of class members contacted us about this bad settlement. As we were figuring out who would be the best objector, Professor Krauss contacted us, and we agreed to represent him within minutes because he taught legal ethics, which added a modicum of ethos to our objection.) We were already overextended with appellate briefing schedules, so we had a choice: we could spend tens of thousands of dollars on outside counsel to resist facially invalid subpoenas requiring a response over the Christmas holidays, and be faced with an additional discovery bill of tens of thousands of dollars if we lost (and thus be put in a position where we might be worse off for requesting fees) or drop the fee request rather than prejudice our other clients. Professor Krauss was generous enough to give us permission to drop the fee request, and we did so. But we asked the court to award sanctions against class counsel on behalf of the class for the abuse of the discovery process to deter future abuses against objectors.

As both Daniel Fisher and the Economist documented recently, the percentage of M&A transactions worth over $500 million that result in shareholder derivative suits has risen from 39% to 96%. [Fisher; Economist; Reuters (quoting me); OL; see also Johnson @ SSRN]

It's surely not the case that every merger is the result of a breach of fiduciary duty. What's happening is that entrepreneurial lawyers have discovered a profitable means of rent-seeking: with the help of a cooperative shareholder, bring a meritless shareholder derivative suit on some technical ground or the other, threaten to impose millions of dollars of discovery expenses and hassle on the officers and directors of the company, and collect an attorneys' fee for settling the case for a token change of no benefit to the shareholders. As I told Reuters in 2011, "Judges should consider whether these provisions actually create value for shareholders, or amount to a rearranging of the deck chairs to create the illusion of value to justify attorneys' fees."

Under FRCP 23.1(a) and its state-law equivalents, a shareholder derivative suit isn't supposed to proceed unless the shareholders bringing the suit adequately represent the shareholders. If the suit is meant to profit the plaintiffs' lawyers at the expense of the corporation (and thus the shareholders), how can the bringers of a strike suit be adequate representatives of the shareholders? I've thus argued that the correct role for courts in such situations is to throw these cases out entirely (or approve the settlement but award only a token amount in attorneys' fees).

I found myself the "beneficiary" of one of these $0 strike-suit settlements in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley; the settlement would have paid the attorneys $925,000 under a clear-sailing clause, and, when the district court rejected my attempt to intervene to dismiss the suit, I appealed to the Seventh Circuit. 

Yesterday, I won a complete victory with a landmark Frank Easterbrook opinion that I hope will provide protection for shareholders against future shareholder derivative strike suits. The suit, the Court said, "serves no goal other than to move money from the corporate treasury to the attorneys’ coffers.... It is an abuse of the legal system to cram unnecessary litigation down the throats of firms ... and then use the high costs ... to extort settlements (including undeserved attorneys’ fees) from the targets." It thus reversed the district court's denial of my motion to intervene, and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case, as I had asked below. [Reuters; Fisher @ Forbes; analysis by Wolfman; WSJ Law Blog (failing to recognize that the case involves a lawyer they profiled in October); Bashman; Overlawyered; Litigation Daily ($) ("Ted Frank, the indefatigable scourge of underwhelming class action settlements, scored a remarkable win on Wednesday"); Volokh on a punctuational quirk] 

This is the fifth federal appellate opinion in a CCAF case; CCAF is now 4-1 in federal appeals, which is remarkable, given that CCAF-affiliated attorneys represent the appellant in each case and there are rarely as many as four reversals of class action settlement-related district court opinions in a single year from all objectors combined.

CCAF is assisting an objector in a Texas-state-court strike suit currently on appeal, and we hope to extend this precedent to other state courts. The main difficulty we face is that individual investors rarely get adequate notice of these bad settlements: courts condone notice provisions that virtually guarantee that an investor who uses a broker will not get notice in time to file an objection. (In the Sears case, I benefited because of a rare agreement to extend notice at the district court level.) We would like to work with institutional investors to promote this precedent and put an end to the practice of rent-seeking strike suits that hurt shareholders. Please contact me if this describes and interests you.

• If you listen to one oral argument from March 27, well, I have to say that you need to listen to Paul Clement's performance in HHS v. Florida. But if you have time for a second oral argument, and you have a hankering for Third Circuit class action action, I'd be curious about your thoughts of the argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen. See also.
• Following up on our earlier post, the Third Circuit denied the motion for sanctions without comment, or permitting us to file a reply brief. (Mazie Slater had no explanation for the misquote; they used the passive voice in describing its mysterious appearance in the brief, and didn't explain how citecheckers missed it.) Having been given such carte blanche, Mazie Slater then proceeded to lie to the court about the terms of the settlement and settlement notice during the oral argument. I simply don't understand why courts aren't willing to do more to police the attorneys who appear before them. If the only consequence for inventing a citation out of whole cloth is the need to file an errata deleting an invented citation (i.e., the brief that should have been filed in the first place), what incentive does the Holmesian "bad actor" have to get the law right in the first place? After all, if there's a 5% chance that the fictionalized version will swing the case, 5% times $9 million in fees is a $450,000 incentive to lie to the court. If the bad actor isn't facing a proportionate downside, you can expect the bad actor to act badly.
• We renewed our objection in Bluetooth. Details at Point of Law.
• The Apple MagSafe settlement—$600,000 for the class, $3.1 million for the attorneys—was rubber-stamped by the district court. We plan to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
• In the Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation settlement with Wal-Mart for a class of Netflix customers, the district court agreed with the settling parties that a coupon isn't a coupon if they call it a "gift card" instead, and that the restrictions on coupon settlements in the Class Action Fairness Act didn't apply, and rejected my objection. We believe this contradicts CAFA, as well as Seventh Circuit precedent, and plan to ask the Ninth Circuit to address this problem.

• Kimberly Craven objection
• Craven Opposition to Final Approval (stricken by court)
• Fairness Hearing Transcript (pp. 70-82)
• No. 11-5205 Amended Statement of Issues
• No. 11-5205 Certificate of Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases

Update, September 1: The plaintiffs moved for an $8.3 million appeal bond to create a procedural barrier to prevent Ms. Craven from exercising her appellate rights. Unfortunately for them, such an excessive appeal bond is illegal. Their motion inexplicably failed to cite binding precedent and court rules that contradicted their position, and we have requested sanctions.

• Craven Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond
• Frank Declaration in Opposition to Motion for Appeal Bond

• September 6 FRAP 30 letter from Frank to opposing counsel

Update, September 9: The indiantrust.com website has been updated with the plaintiffs' September 7 reply brief on the appeal bond briefing, but omits any link to Ms. Craven's response brief.

Update, September 14: We've reached an agreement with the appellees to expedite the briefing schedule for the appeal. Ms. Craven's opening brief will be due October 17; the appellees' response briefs will be due December 16; our reply brief will be due January 6. This will, one hopes, shave several months off the time for resolution of the appeal. The D.C. Circuit has agreed to this schedule. Coverage at BLT.

Update, October 6: class counsel's motion for appeal bond denied. Class counsel is ordered to produce a declaration explaining how its brief failed to cite binding precedent and misrepresented the law. Let's see how long it takes to get the district court opinion on the indiantrust.com website.

Update, October 17: Craven's opening brief was filed today. The appellees' briefs are due December 16. I expect some amicus briefs to be filed October 24.

Update, October 26: The Competitive Enterprise Institute filed an amicus brief this week in support of Ms. Craven's appeal. More coverage at BLT.

Update, December 1: We've moved for judicial notice of a government motion to dismiss a $400 million lawsuit over Indian trust mismanagement based on the Cobell settlement. The existence of this motion supports our argument that the class certification of (and settlement distribution for) the Trust Administration class was illegal. The indiantrust.com website took down all the briefing for the appeal bond issue rather than acknowledge the district court's ruling denying the bond and criticizing their briefing strategy, so this appears to be the first appearance of the affidavit required by the court that class counsel was required to file in November. The indiantrust.com website also fails to identify that the briefing schedule for the 11-5270 appeals has not been set yet; the settling parties have requested that that be expedited to conclude in March, well after Ms. Craven's appeal briefing concludes. Finally, the DC Circuit granted CEI's leave to file an amicus brief.

Update, December 15:

• Oral argument is scheduled for February 16, with a panel of Rogers/Tatel/Brown. 
• Plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to judicial notice.
• Monday, the government has filed a brief in Two Shields v. United States that essentially argues that class certification of the Trust Administration Class under Rule 23 was illegal for the same reasons we argued that it was illegal. We've made a second motion for judicial notice of that filing. That brief contradicts the position that the government took at the fairness hearing, so I'm curious to see what they do when they file their briefs tomorrow. Certainly, however, the Two Shields case demonstrates that this illegal settlement adversely affects more than just Kimberly Craven.

More coverage of the AOL victory in a Washington Examiner op-ed. And Reuters Legal does a lengthy story.

AOL's attorney's comment is revealing: all they cared about was whether they were able to get rid of the frivolous claims against them in a nuisance lawsuit. But the Center cares more about establishing precedents and rules governing the long-term fairness of class actions than any individual result. That larger issue was irrelevant to AOL, so they think they have a victory, but we do, too. Reuters, through Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, questions whether it makes a difference: it does. Class actions are supposed to benefit the class first, rather than the attorneys. When the attorneys have carte blanche to choose cy pres recipients, they effectively get double-payment. To the extent Professor Fitzpatrick cares about defendant deterrence as a reason for class actions, he should be pleased that the defendant would not be allowed to dictate illusory cy pres that goes to their preferred charitable donee.

Interestingly, Kabateck Brown Kellner, whose attorneys had written a dishonest op-ed criticizing CCAF's defense of class members in cy pres settlements without revealing they were adverse to us in four cases (all four of which have now resulted in CCAF court victories), couldn't even be bothered to file a Ninth Circuit brief making a public-policy argument for their preferred tactic of abusive cy pres.

Welcome to those of you who found this page after reading the Wall Street Journal profile. The Journal also discussed our Sirius XM objection. Other articles about CCAF can be found on my personal website. Join our Facebook page to stay updated on what we're up to. (Later today, I'll be posting our Ninth Circuit brief on the HP Inkjet printer coupon settlement, where the attorneys got $2.1 million, and the class got coupons only usable at HP.com—which charges far more than other Internet vendors, making it more expensive to use the coupons than not to use the coupons.)

I should note the story does not give enough credit to the attorneys working with me; for example, Frank Bednarz (now a much better-paid patent litigator in BigLaw) argued the Honda case, and Dan Greenberg argued the West Publishing, Kellogg, and Hertz cases. Adam Schulman, a 2010 Georgetown Law grad, just got his first district-court argument a month ago in the Pampers case, which, after a district-court approval, will generate an interesting Sixth Circuit appeal on the scope of Rule 23(b)(2) and the permissibility of big attorney-fee awards in $0 settlements.

The Center for Class Action Fairness LLC objected today to a valueless class action settlement: the objection, filed in the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class member, underscores that the proposed Sirius XM Radio settlement would provide valueless injunctive relief to the class but $13 million to class attorneys.
"Certainly, parties to a class action can agree to settle a case for $13 million," said Ted Frank, the lead attorney on the objection and the founder of CCAF. "But if they do, it is inherently unfair and unreasonable for the attorneys to extract 100% of the settlement benefit for themselves. Class actions should be prosecuted on behalf of the class members, not self-serving class counsel."

The settlement of the antitrust class action against Sirius XM requires only that the defendant agree to not raise prices for five months. But this is an entirely valueless promise, given that Sirius XM, facing admittedly heavy competition from Internet music services and MP3 players, has been lowering prices and engaging in deep discounting to keep customers. Yet class counsel (including the Milberg law firm) implausibly claims that the settlement is worth $180 million to the class.

The CCAF objection also targets Judge Harold Baer's class certification order. For several years, Judge Baer has controversially required class counsel to meet racial quotas as a condition of appointment. CCAF has requested that Judge Baer vacate that part of his class certification order as unconstitutional.

The case is Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 09-cv-10035 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Center for Class Action Fairness, founded in 2009, is a not-for-profit program that provides pro bono representation to consumers and shareholders aggrieved by class action attorneys who negotiate settlements that benefit themselves at the expense of their putative clients. It has won millions of dollars for class members over the last two years.

The growth of the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC can be shown just by the breadth of its activities on Monday, June 20:

• There were twelve objectors at the Cobell v. Salazar fairness hearing, and I was the only attorney representing an objector. Unfortunately, the district court overruled our objections, and approved the $3.4 billion settlement. There was some good news: if one takes the plaintiffs' request for $224 million in a fee and expense award seriously, rather than as a tactical maneuver to give the judge room to award high fees while appearing to cut the request, then the judge's decision to award $99 million in fees (and reject another $11 million in expense requests by the class representatives) means that there will be another $136 million available for class members when and if distribution takes place.
• Dan Greenberg was at the fairness hearing in the Central District of California for Stetson v. West Publishing which drew some extra blogosphere attention because it involved BarBri expenses for many many recent law-school graduates. The court, from the bench, rejected the coupon settlement, which entailed over $1.8 million in attorney-fee requests. It's the second win from the bench in a row for Dan; we're still waiting for the official opinion in the coupon settlement rejection in Sobel v. Hertz (D. Nev.).
• And Adam Schulman, our local counsel Chris Arfaa, and I helped file Dan's reply brief in the McDonough v. Toys "R" Us (E.D. Pa.) baby products class action settlement, where the attorneys are requesting about $14 million though the class is likely to receive less than $20 million. The fairness hearing will be July 6 in Philadelphia.

The Center for Class Action Fairness represents class members pro bono when they are treated unfairly by class action settlements. Please contact me if you get notice of a class action settlement that you are concerned might be unfair, and I will evaluate it for free.

Details at the Point of Law blog. I'm sorry, as well as angry.

Update: I won't be filing an appeal, though my clients are of course free to find an attorney willing to do that for them.

I won't personally be filing a malpractice action, but I'm happy to consult with an attorney who is considering doing so if a class member finds one.

Update 2: Please don't email me asking for individual legal advice about what you can or should do with your computer, or what other legal options you may pursue. I don't have the resources to provide free advice to a million different class members beyond my five clients. You'll need to consult with your own attorney. I'm rooting for someone to bring a malpractice suit, but I'm not advising you one way or the other on that, either as a class action or as a small-claims case against Milberg.

I will note that I believe that, because NVIDIA failed to provide a computer of "like or similar kind" as the settlement notice promised, and because Judge Ware failed to enforce the settlement as written and noticed to the class (his opinion mistakenly says that the CQ-56 was "designated in the settlement"), the class notice is constitutionally invalid and cannot be considered to bind absent class members besides my five clients who got a ruling from Judge Ware. Someone who sues HP and/or NVIDIA in small-claims court and persuades the judge that the class notice does not bind them could possibly recover cash in small-claims court. Of course, HP and NVIDIA will argue that the notice was constitutionally valid and that the small-claims court does not have jurisdiction, so I am not giving you legal advice to pursue your claim in small-claims court; you could win, you could lose. Check with a lawyer.

Today the Center for Class Action Fairness filed an objection to the $3.4 billion taxpayer-funded Cobell Indian trust settlement on behalf of Sisseton-Wahpeton Ovate tribe member and class member Kimberly Craven.

Congress recently held hearings in response to the class attorneys' fee request of $223 million, which was over twice the $99.9 million they promised Congress they would limit their request to. [BLT]

The fee request includes one $925/hour attorney who claims to have billed over 28,000 hours in seven years, including a 28.5-hour day. The class representatives have also requested an unprecedented $13 million payment for themselves, raising conflict-of-interest questions that could preclude settlement approval.

Ms. Craven's objection, among other issues, challenges the "upside-down" allocation methodology, where class members who have suffered the most mismanagement of their trust accounts will receive less money than equally situated class members whose trust accounts were administered appropriately.

The settlement and objection present interesting legal issues of whether Congress can constitutionally abrogate class action certification requirements and whether a mandatory class action for injunctive relief can involuntarily waive class members' rights to relief already won in court in exchange for one-size-fits-all cash payments.

The case is Cobell v. Salazar, No. 1:96-cv-1285 (TFH) (D.D.C.).