class actions 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.

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.

In these two California class action settlements over debt-collection practices, one strongly suspects the attorneys are trying to rip off their clients: notwithstanding the clear requirement of Rule 23(h) and In re Mercury Interactive Securities Lit., notice is going to the class without any disclosure of the requested attorneys' fees. But in Calloway v. Cash America Net of California LLC, No. 09-CV-4858, 2011 WL 1467356 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2011), the Court ruled that the fact that the attorneys' fees were being paid separately from a common fund meant that the class would not be affected by the fee award. This is economic nonsense: the fact that a denial of a fee request will revert to the defendant instead of the plaintiff is reason to give a settlement more rather than less scrutiny. And, indeed, the settlements in these cases pay a grand total of $212,500 to class members (compared to $6,000 for the two class representatives), a tiny fraction of the statutory damages available. So how can a court say that attorneys who settle for pennies on the dollar for their clients but reserve the right for a full fee award by insisting an admission from the defendant that the plaintiffs are "prevailing parties" aren't potentially depriving the class? Imagine a hypothetical settlement where every class member gets a penny but the attorneys ask for a multiplied lodestar and get clear sailing: by Judge Seeborg's reasoning, class members have no complaint because the fees aren't coming from the class's pockets. But class members do have a complaint when attorneys settle class actions with self-serving agreements that benefit the attorneys at the expense of the class: that prevailing-party clause surely comes at a cost to class recovery.

If there's a member of one of these two classes who would like to timely object to this potential rip-off, the Center would be happy to represent them pro bono to vindicate the protections of Rule 23(h) in all class settlements. The second case is Gittin v. KCI USA, Inc., No. C-09-5843 RS (N.D. Cal.).

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.).

Class members getting a notice for this case have been writing me. Dudes: I made my name in the Grand Theft Auto class action, of course I bought Madden and am a class member here.

This is a class action certification, rather than a settlement, so there isn't an easy way for me to get involved at this stage. At the moment, the problem is one of antitrust law, rather than class action law: as the defendant, Electronic Arts already has every incentive to litigate for a reasonable interpretation of antitrust law (and, more particularly, law geeks, the Aspen Skiing or bottleneck doctrine) without me butting in. Given my limited resources and heavy caseload (five cases have filings due in the next seven days!), I prefer to save my powder for cases—like class action settlements—where none of the parties before the court have the proper incentive to ensure the right questions get before the court unless I speak up. I would like to see more courts consider Rule 23(a)(4) in antitrust cases, since many class actions involve legal theories that would make the putative clients/consumers worse off, and a class certification is effectively a merits decision that a class member would prefer to endorse the class attorney's theory of the case. And some day in some case where the conflict is clearer and the defendant hasn't alienated me with poor customer service and buggy products, I'll make that argument. But given that courts have never considered this question before, I want the first time I make the argument to be a better test case than this one.

Rest assured, however, that I'm monitoring the case, and will not hesitate to get involved if class counsel tries to pull a fast one on their clients. (I'm naively hoping that, if I'm doing my job right, my vocal presence in the class will deter class counsel from negotiating a settlement I would object to in the first place.) If you're asking me what you should do, I can't give you individual legal advice if we don't have an attorney-client relationship, but I would note that there is no reason to ever opt out of a class action unless you plan to be suing the defendant yourself. If you're still in the class when it settles, you can always object later if the lawyers turn out to be settling the case for their benefit rather than yours.

The case number is 08-cv-2820-CW (N.D. Cal.).

In January, we discussed a Center for Class Action Fairness objection to a coupon settlement involving HP inkjet printers. That settlement turned out to be even worse than the pathetic one advertised: $5 million in coupons were offered, but the multi-million member class only bothered to file claims for $1.5 million worth of the coupons, with the rest reverting to HP. And of course, a claim for a coupon is not an actual redemption of the coupon: my $2 coupon will likely go unused, since there's nothing HP sells on its website that isn't more than two dollars more expensive than what I can get it for elsewhere.

The attorneys asked for $2.9 million in fees and expenses, justifying it with a quack economic expert report valuing some token injunctive relief as being worth tens of millions of dollars. In a March 29 opinion, Judge Fogel rejected that valuation, held that the settlement was worth only $1.5 million to the class, and reduced the award of fees and expenses to $2.1 million.

Some of the language in the opinion is very good: all too often, courts divorce the fee inquiry from the relief actually won. As Russell Jackson points out, this court said, "To allow an award of attorneys' fees to outstrip the benefit to consumers in such cases would undermine the importance of focusing the efforts of class action counsel on issues that most affect consumers."

So why did the attorneys get $2.1 million? Because of the economic fiction of "fees" and "expenses," which are calculated differently. See, "expenses" cover things like travel, experts, and copying costs. But "fees," that covers things like rent and other overhead, attorney salaries, and paralegals. Attorneys will allocate a dollar received into one bucket or the other, and for some reason, courts will scrutinize the buckets differently, though at the end of the day, the attorneys get a single check for money that they can spend any way they want: the rent and the airlines are going to get paid either way. So the court held that the $2.9 million requested, consisting of $2.3 million in fees and $0.6 million in expenses, was unreasonable with respect to the fees, and reasonable with respect to the expenses—even though the fee request also includes money that goes to expenses, just a different category of expenses. So the attorneys got all of their "expense" request, and just had the "fee" request reduced—but still ended up with more than the class.

That's just business as usual, but there were a couple of other troubling things about the decision. The Class Action Fairness Act requires coupons to be valued by their redemption rate, not by the claim rate. Many of these coupons (such as the one I am scheduled to receive) are not going to be used; one institutional party received tens of thousands of unusable coupons because the terms of the settlement require a claimant to use only one coupon per order, and it would be infeasible for the company to split up its bulk orders to tens of thousands of individual orders.

Second, the court opinion says that there were only three objections, but this is false: there were hundreds of objections, but, because of a confusing notice, 99% of the objectors (including the institution discussed earlier) sent their objections to the claims administrator, the parties never passed along those objections to the court, and the court disregarded my complaint about the procedure in its opinion. Ironic for a consumer fraud case that the plaintiffs' attorneys successfully took advantage of a misleading notice they provided.

Should CCAF appeal this decision? An attorney commenting at Jackson's site suggests that the plaintiffs' attorneys will appeal, and if they do, we'll certainly cross-appeal. At some point CCAF will ask the appellate courts to create a bright-line rule forbidding attorneys from recovering more than their clients. Is this the case to do it?

As I discussed on our Facebook page yesterday, I wasn't given our full ten minutes to argue in the hearing, while Milberg and NVIDIA took well over ten minutes each to argue against the motion. This could mean Judge Ware didn't care what I had to say, or it could mean that he wanted to give the other side the chance to exhaust every argument before ruling against them, or it could mean nothing at all or anything in between. The judge acknowledged the difference between a 17-inch screen and the smaller replacement computer screen. Judge Ware said he'd review the technical reports, so it seems that it will come down to which experts he believes. Will the judge see that Nader Bagherzadeh's conclusions are dishonestly inconsistent with his own data or that Jon Peddie applied the wrong legal standard and contradicted his non-litigation positions? I don't know, and I don't know when the judge will rule. I have one case in Chicago where we've been waiting since October for a ruling, and a recent case in New Jersey where a ruling came in less than 24 hours.

Update: Court rules for NVIDIA. If you're a class member with questions about the case, and why your attorneys argued against your own recovery, you need to talk to your attorneys at Milberg; I cannot help you.

Our earlier post continues to update the docket, most notably with our reply brief filed today.

It's hard to believe that multiple millionaire lawyers from multiple law firms all asked the court to apply the wrong legal standard for deciding a dispute over a consent decree accidentally. I'll take it as a good sign that they didn't think they could win if the court applied the correct legal standard and that their only hope was to obfuscate. It is of some concern that lawyers think they can obfuscate like that and get away with it without getting sanctioned.

What is most remarkable is the shamelessness of the contrasting claims by NVIDIA and Milberg. When asking the court to disregard objections to the settlement, the settling parties argued that there would be hundreds of thousands of claims worth at least tens (and probably hundreds) of millions of dollars. (Milberg actually argued that there would be "exponentially" more than hundreds of thousands of claims, but I presume that was because they don't know what "exponentially" means rather than because they were arguing that there would be tens of billions of claims.)

But push has come to shove, and only 30 thousand class members have taken the preliminary steps of asking for relief—and the Settling Parties have the gall to argue that this response rate (which will correspond to less than $10 million of class benefit, less than the $13 million attorney fee) demonstrates the popularity of the settlement administration, because one couldn't reasonably expect any more claims than that. We didn't even ask for those numbers: NVIDIA shamelessly volunteered them as evidence of the success of the settlement.

This case is a poster child for why courts should not award attorneys' fees until after the claims period has ended. If we hadn't intervened in this case, no one would have ever disclosed that Milberg exaggerated class recovery twenty- to fifty-fold, and this would be recorded in some empirical study as evidence of attorneys generously restricting themselves to fees of less than 10% of class recovery, rather than 130% of class recovery.

Update: Court rules for NVIDIA. If you're a class member with questions about the case, and why your attorneys argued against your own recovery, you need to talk to your attorneys at Milberg; I cannot help you.

Our January 13 post on the NVIDIA GPU settlement, where class members were promised a “replacement HP notebook computer … of similar kind and value as their eligible malfunctioning notebook computer" as part of a settlement, but are instead getting a $330 Compaq CQ56 notebook, has generated several updates and over 100 comments. Though class counsel suggested to me that patience would result in a fix to the settlement, it did not for the vast majority of aggrieved class members, and we ended up losing five weeks. I've started this post now that the court filings have started, and will update as new filings come in. The court granted our motion to expedite the hearing schedule, but expediting means a March 28 hearing. Over 100 HP owners have asked for the opportunity to provide a declaration to the court. One of my clients has a website with more information: fairnvidiasettlement.com.

• 343. HP Owners' emergency motion to shorten time
• 344. Frank declaration in support of emergency motion
• 345. Plaintiffs' status report and response to emergency motion
• 346. NVIDIA response to emergency motion (Note: NVIDIA says I was not authorized to represent their non-opposition. That's my fault: I incorrectly assumed that when Robert Varian of Orrick e-mailed me to say that there was an "Agreement not to oppose" the motion, that meant there was an agreement not to oppose the motion. Similarly, plaintiffs surprised me when they sat on my proposed schedule for over 24 hours without telling me they changed their minds not to oppose. Live and learn.)
• 347. Court order scheduling briefing and hearing
• 348. Motion to enforce settlement
• 349. Memorandum in support of motion to enforce settlement
• 349-12. Proposed order
• 350. Frank declaration in support of motion to enforce settlement
• 351. Ram/Edelson objectors kibitz on motion
• 352. Brown class members' response to Ram/Edelson objectors
• 353. [Transcript ordering relating to objectors' appeal; not relevant to this motion]
• 354. NVIDIA response to [348] motion
• 355. Jon Peddie (NVIDIA) declaration
• 356. Keith Katchor (NVIDIA) declaration
• 357. Dan Rosenthal (NVIDIA/settlement administrator) declaration
• 358. Milberg response to [348] motion
• 358.1. Westerman declaration
• 358.2. Bagherzadeh declaration
• 358.4. Laratro declaration
• 359. Certificate of service
• 360. Unrelated docket entry regarding procedural step in objector appeal
• 361. Lichterman (NVIDIA/Orrick) declaration
• 362. Reply brief in support of motion to enforce settlement
• 363. Zilles declaration
• 364. Frank supplemental declaration
• 365. Vlastone supplemental declaration and report
• 366. Notice of settling parties' alteration of settlement website
• 367. NVIDIA response to notice of settling parties' alteration of settlement website
• 368. Supplemental Bagherzadeh declaration
• 369. Supplemental Laratro declaration
• 370. Certificate of service
• 371. Supplemental Zilles declaration
• 372. Supplemental Frank declaration
• 373. Docket entry noting hearing and motion under submission
• 374. Horton declaration

The Ninth Circuit has scheduled oral argument in the Bluetooth case for Monday, February 7, 9 a.m., in the federal courthouse in Pasadena. (Five other cases are on the calendar, so I probably won't get my fifteen minutes until after 10 a.m.) I'm undefeated (well, ok, 1-0) in that courthouse.

The first time I ever visited the Pasadena courthouse was in the fall of 1992, when a memorable young law clerk in Alex Kozinski's chambers named Eugene Volokh quizzed me about the issue of toughening evidentiary standards for expert witnesses in what I think was the first law-clerk interview of the season for 1994-95. (That was the first attempt of the judiciary and the legal academy to create a cartel for the hiring of law clerks, and I unwittingly caused it to break down when I sent my resume out without consulting with the law school, and Judge Kozinski started calling people in for interviews, causing a chain reaction that unraveled everyone's plans.) Eugene, of course, went on to bigger and better things.

If you're in the DC area, and you're interested in putting in a few hours reading briefs and throwing questions at me on a moot court later this month, please drop me an email. (Friends from Kirkland & Ellis: sorry, you're adverse to me in this case, so you're not invited.)

If I were to buy a three-pack of color ink for my inkjet printer today, it would cost me $42.99 at HP.com and $36.99 at Amazon.com. That's not a big deal—unless HP is trying to settle a class action by giving class members $2 coupons that can only be used at HP.com (and can't be transferred or stacked, and expire in six months). And even if the coupon was larger (some class members get $7 coupons) HP makes much more money selling ink at HP.com than at Amazon.com, all else being equal: this is a marketing program for them. And the attorneys are claiming that they're entitled to $2.9 million for such a lame settlement because the coupons are "worth" $5 million. And even if one attributed full face value to the coupons (which the parties try mightily hard to not call coupons), I strongly suspect far less than $5 million of coupons will be claimed or redeemed.

The Center filed an objection today in the Northern District of California. Kabateck Brown Kellner, who we've seen before in the $0 AOL settlement and the $117k Classmates.com settlement, are among the lead attorneys in this ripoff as well.

Objections are due January 3. If you're a class member (and most people who purchased HP inkjet printers in the last nine years are, and there are tens of millions of them out there), you can file a claim or object at the settlement website; this settlement nicely permits emails if you prefer objecting that way.

In the Kellogg's Frosted Mini-Wheats class action settlement, class members (those who purchased the cereal on certain dates in 2008 and 2009) who submit claims will receive $5/box for up to three boxes of purchased Frosted Mini-Wheats, with claims pro-rated if there are more than $2.75 million in claims. If there is less than $2.75 million in claims, money goes to a charity that has yet to be named. In addition, Kellogg's will donate "$5.5 million" in food to charity (that also has yet to be named), though there is no indication how that valuation will be determined. For this, six law firms are requesting $2 million in fees, though:
That amount of fees is disproportionate to the class relief;
the settlement provides for cy pres relief even though there might be more than $8.25 million in claims, demonstrating that the attorneys put the interest of the third-party charities ahead of their clients' interest; and
the class notice is defective for failing to identify the charitable recipients of the cy pres, giving the class no opportunity to object to an improper recipient.

If you're a class member and you're unhappy with attorneys improperly making millions in your name, do contact me at the Center for Class Action Fairness to discuss your options.

Under Fed. R. App. Proc. 30(b), appellants and appellees are to coordinate the production of a joint record on appeal, the appendix of the relevant filings and transcripts from the lower court proceedings to assist the appellate court in their review of the case. A number of courts of appeal, including the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, have very common-sense approaches to this: they've established local rules whereby each side submits their own appendix.  Others haven't caught on to the game-playing that can go on, and go with the default federal rule.  So, I, as an appellant, negotiate with the appellee settling parties about what appears in the record.

Time after time, I see the appellees asking to kill countless trees by burying the record on appeal with paper from the lower court. One might think they're doing this to just increase the costs of litigation for the other side, since the appellants are required to prepare the record on appeal—except Rule 30(b)(2) permits the appellant to take the position that the additional material is unnecessary, and ask the other side to advance the costs of providing the designated material. The real reason is, I would imagine, an insulting one: to persuade the judge that there's so much work to be done that the judge should just be lazy and throw up their hands and ignore the issues rather than dig through all the paper. This certainly never fooled the judges I clerked for, but it must work often enough to be worth the death of all these trees. There aren't any real sanctions with any bite for making appellate judges' lives harder like that, notwithstanding the clear command of Rule 30(a)(2) not to be pointlessly including material, so we have this wasteful game.

I'm seeing this now in one of my pending appeals; the appellees are trying to bury the record in meaningless paper that has nothing to do with the issues on appeal. I can't stop them, so I shrug my shoulders and ask for the payment that Rule 30(b)(2) requires. That should be the end of it, but for some reason the lawyers—often the same lawyers that have made me write a check to post an appeal bond to ensure they could recover their costs in the unlikely event they won on appeal—want to argue with me that the material is essential to the record on appeal and it's up to me to pay for including the material in the record on appeal. I generally don't play this game, but I recently had cause to write the following paragraph in a letter to defense counsel regarding the copying costs of one small three-page slice of the hundreds of pages they wanted included (material redacted to protect the guilty):

Docket No. [yyy]. [This docket entry] applies to the 10-[xxxx] cross-appeal and is not relevant to [my appeal]. I agree that if you decide to prosecute the cross-appeal, you will be required to advance the costs for us to include this docket entry in Volume 1 of the Record. Should you prevail in [the cross-appeal], you can petition to receive the approximately $5 to $20 in costs from the plaintiffs' appeal bond, but I understand if you wish to bill another $100 to your client to argue about this some more.

You may recall that I was not pleased with an Apple settlement that provided for $2.5 million to go to a series of universities and law schools with "corporate governance" programs (two of which were affiliated with the lead plaintiffs' counsel) instead of to the purportedly injured class members. (See also coverage from Ira Stoll, Jim Copland, John Carney, and Lyle Roberts.) Such "cy pres" awards are a breach of class counsel's fiduciary duty to the class by putting the interests of unrelated third parties ahead of their putative clients.

After I sent a letter to class counsel and counsel for Apple notifying them that I had a client who was going to object, the parties quickly rushed to court and submitted a modified settlement. Now, class members have first bite at the $2.5 million, an approximately 15% increase in what shareholders can recover in the settlement; Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Delaware will not get any of it.

This is definitely a material improvement (and one that would entitle the Center to attorneys' fees), but it's still not good enough; I've asked the court to refuse preliminary approval until the settlement guarantees that the class gets the entirety of the $16.5 million settlement fund.

Notice went out today, and five separate people have emailed me in the last hour about the Google Buzz settlement, which I've been tracking since it was first announced a couple of weeks ago.  It flunks Rule 23, but, believe it or not, is not the worst settlement in the world (we have four cases pending in Ninth Circuit courts alone that are worse, including one in in Judge Ware's court).  In addition, this case is going to attract attention from a lot of privacy advocates whether or not the Center for Class Action Fairness gets involved, so I don't know how much value-added we provide by being the n-th objection.  And I'm a class member, so if we do get involved, I can do so pretty quickly.

Anyway, this is just to say that yes, CCAF is aware of the Google Buzz settlement; we haven't decided yet whether to get involved because we have six or seven other briefs due between now and Christmas; if you're interested in getting involved without waiting for that decision, take a look at our Ninth Circuit briefs in the Bluetooth (09-56683) and AOL (10-55129) cases that we filed earlier this year.

Did you buy Apple stock between 2001 and 2006?

Ira Stoll and Jim Copland have discussed the outrageous Apple backdating lawsuit resulting in the outrageous Apple backdating settlement. The magnitude of the settlement compared to the original claims demonstrates that it is an extortionate nuisance settlement, being made because it would cost more to defend the suit than to pay the attorneys to go away.

But it should be noted: the settlement is not just outrageous, it is illegal. Under the Ninth Circuit's Six Mexican Growers precedent, a court should not be issuing cy pres that is not likely to benefit the class members. And as the Center for Class Action Fairness noted in recent Ninth Circuit briefing, the American Law Institute has said that cy pres is inappropriate where class members are readily identifiable. Given that the class attorneys are negotiating money for third parties instead of their own putative clients (for their own benefit, no less), there is also a breach of fiduciary duty that raises questions whether the class attorneys meet the Rule 23(a)(4) standard. The settlement is further problematic in that the vast majority of class members are entitled to zero compensation; it is far from clear that the sole lead plaintiff is a member of this subclass.

The Center for Class Action Fairness would love to object to such a blatantly illegal settlement. But it can't do so in a vacuum: it can only do so on behalf of a class member who is being ripped off by these attorneys. Class members are those who bought Apple stock (AAPL) between August 24, 2001 and June 29, 2006—but only people who bought the stock between November 2005 and May 2006 are entitled to recover any money under the settlement, and their recovery is being diluted by the diversion to cy pres. We'd be happy to represent you pro bono if you agree that settlement is objectionable and wish to object: please contact me. If you're not in the class, but know people or institutions who might be, spread the word.  (Update: we have one objector, and are talking to a couple of others. Isn't crowd-sourcing great?)

Trial lawyers often say that they care about access to justice, but that principle seems to go out the window when it comes to objectors to unfair class action settlements that might interfere with attorneys' fees.

In Dewey v. Volkswagen, currently pending on appeal in the Third Circuit (10-3618, consolidated with 10-3506, 10-3617, 10-3798, and cross-appeals 10-3651 and 10-3652), the plaintiffs' attorneys have asked for an oversized appeal bond explicitly to prevent the appeal from taking place.

Plaintiffs claim that such an appeal bond is necessary to prevent "extortion" on appeal, the problem where a "professional objector" seeks to hold up the payment of the settlement attorneys' fees with a meritless appeal in the hopes that the class attorney will pay some fraction of the time value of money to get the objector to drop the appeal.

The Center for Class Action Fairness took the plaintiffs at their word, and, in our brief opposing the appeal bond, cross-moved for a different remedy: an injunction against extortionate settlements of the objection. Such an injunction, by requiring court approval of any withdrawal of the appeal, would do far more than an appeal bond to deter the attempt to settle a case for a quid pro quo payment to the objector without any benefit to the class. We suggested, however, that the plaintiffs' attorneys weren't really concerned about extortionate appeals (which permit them to escape appellate scrutiny at relatively low cost) so much as the fact of appeal.

Sure enough, the class counsel opposed the Center's cross-motion for injunction, though on remarkably flimsy grounds that insultingly presuppose a lack of intelligence on behalf of the magistrate; surely they don't expect that the judge will be confused by the difference between a merits injunction and an injunction regarding the conduct of the parties on appeal? You'll also note that the plaintiffs completely changed their theory behind the reasoning of the appeal bond without ever addressing the Center's arguments in their reply brief, but one hopes the district court isn't so easily fooled by sandbagging.

Relatedly, on September 22, the Third Circuit decided In re Community Bank of N. Va., which all but guarantees that we will win our appeal, given that the Dewey settlement suffers from the same fatal defect of a prejudiced subclass being unrepresented.

You may have been one of the millions of people to receive a settlement notice regarding a class action against Classmates.com; the settlement notice implied that class members would receive $9.5 million (though only $2-$3 per person, and that mostly in coupons) and the attorneys would ask for $1.3 million.

You then probably received a supplemental notice saying that the attorneys were generously only asking for $1.05 million, and that, if you sent four letters to four different addresses, you could object to the fee request.

You probably didn't object: it's hardly worth your time to spend $1.76 in postage over a $2 or $3 settlement.

What you won't see on either of the settlement notices or the settlement website is how much the class is actually recovering: out of millions of class members, there were fewer than 50,000 claims made. The class will receive only $117,374 (see page 4 of PDF). The attorneys are asking for a 895% contingency fee.

Professor Michael Krauss of George Mason Law School will be objecting to the fee award (and an attempt to rip off the class by diverting $500,000 to an unrelated charity instead of to class members); the Center for Class Action Fairness is proud to represent him.

The fact that an Internet company didn't make it possible to object over email is just an attempt to limit the number of objections. But CCAF is willing to help: we won't represent you, but if you submit a conforming objection to me over email to classmates.objection@gmail.com in a pdf by November 15, CCAF will do the mailing for you. Here is an MS Word document to make the process easier; fill in the blanks, keep or delete or add to the paragraphs as you see fit, sign, scan, e-mail (or mail yourself to the addresses indicated). (CCAF is not your attorney if you choose to have us mail your objection for you; we reserve the right not to mail any pdf that is offensive or seems to be fake.)

The trial lawyers are arguing that the low number of objections means that this is a good settlement. That's clearly false given how hard they made it to object and the fact that class members weren't told the full truth about how bad the settlement was, but let's try to take away that argument by sending the court a few dozen more objections. And tell your friends.

Note that the class attorneys in this case are Kabateck Brown Kellner, who were the attorneys in the $0 AOL Footer settlement; in that case, they took the position that it was okay to hide conflicts of interest to the court and to the class in a class notice. So we're not just objecting, we're asking for the discovery that KBK said we should have done in the AOL case.

Update, September 4: Google is leading lots of people to this page, but this post is referring to a 2010 settlement, which we successfully objected to. If you came to this page from a search engine, you are probably looking for the revised 2011 settlement.

• In Lonardo v. Travelers Insurance, our objection resulted in a $2 million improvement in the settlement. We maintained the objection, and the court approved the settlement; we straightforwardly acknowledged that the court "could" approve the improved settlement (where the attorneys got nearly as much as the class as opposed to more than twice as much) under its discretionary powers, but "shouldn't," and the court found that offensive for some reason. To add insult to injury, the court preemptively made findings that we weren't entitled to even ask for attorneys' fees for our role in improving the settlement. On a motion to reconsider, the court begrudgingly awarded attorneys' fees, and then proceeded to come up with bad dicta that suggests that objectors are obligated to engage in expensive discovery about settlement negotiations before they are completed. (The scenario where a settlement is improved by 71% on the eve of the fairness hearing is rare enough that one hopes that does not matter; it's pretty clear that settling parties would object to the discovery that would produce the evidence that the Lonardo court says is required.) The $40,000 in fees is nice, but it was unfortunate that the court felt the need to insult us along the way; we made it clear that there was substantial work we performed on the case for which we were not seeking fees, and the court repeatedly implied that the only thing we did were the few dozen hours we requested fees for. We did get the court to acknowledge that Perdue v. Kenny A. applies to class-action attorney-fee requests (though that does not explain why the court awarded a 1.4 multiplier to the plaintiffs' attorneys). If those opinions were issued today, when we have a diversified donor base, we would have appealed. At the time, we were low on funds, and had to make a triage decision to save our powder for more egregiously bad decisions. Judging by Google hits, class members have started to receive their checks, which are 71% larger than they would have been without our objection.
• In the Sears case, the court denied our motion to dismiss and our motion to intervene, the latter because we sought to appeal, and therefore were "obstructive." That reasoning begs the question when one is entitled to move to intervene for purposes of appeal; the court did not cite the leading Seventh Circuit case on the issue. We will appeal: we believe Devlin gives us standing to do so, and, in any event, the denial of the motion to intervene was clearly erroneous. I am excited about this appeal, as it will give the Seventh Circuit the chance to clarify the law of derivative shareholder lawsuits and whether it is appropriate to bring them for the primary purpose of extracting attorneys' fees.
• I'm also enthused about our chances in the Dewey v. Volkswagen appeal to the Third Circuit. The plaintiffs have requested a punitive appeal bond, and the district court will rule on that in October. I'll have a post about that later in the week.
• Alas, I will not be participating in another appeal I was confident about, the Ninth Circuit Yahoo! appeal.  As you know, the Center for Class Action Fairness refuses to settle a class action objection unless the withdrawal of the objection results in a settlement that is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Our clients disagreed with that approach, and we have withdrawn as counsel. We did not ask for and will not accept any fees in that representation.