class actions settlements

• Procter & Gamble (but not the plaintiffs) filed an en banc petition seeking further review of the 2-1 decision striking down the ludicrous attorney-benefit-only settlement in Dry Max Pampers. CCAF filed its opposition yesterday.


• Similarly problematic to the Dry Max Pampers settlement is the case of Richardson v. L'Oreal, a pathetic lawsuit and settlement that seems to have forum-shopping shenanigans. CCAF attorney Adam Schulman filed an objection on behalf of a class member.


• One tactic class counsel engages in is to attempt to scare off objections with abusive discovery requests. This happened in L'Oreal, where class counsel purported to try to subpoena every attorney working for CCAF. Less than one business day after the subpoena was served and we sent this letter, class counsel withdrew all of the subpoenas. We're not scared of discovery: we follow the rules, and as Citigroup showed, class counsel almost always has something to hide. In this case, for example, it's doubtful the class representatives ever had any real input in the settlement process, and some might not even have standing; and I'd wager there's more than a colorable chance that there are documents existing where the parties agree that they don't want to be in the Ninth Circuit because of Bluetooth. But we're leanly staffed, and offensive and defensive discovery can be time-consuming and take away from the fun appellate stuff we like to do. If you're a litigator who'd like to be on our pro bono SWAT team call list the next time someone tries to play discovery games with us (subject of course to conflict checks and the like when the occasions arise), please drop me a line. We're engaging in fundraising so that we can be more aggressive with offensive discovery in future cases.


• We won $26.7 million for shareholders in the Citigroup case, but we think we can win even more on appeal. Another objector appealed anyway, so we're not adding any delay. We filed a notice of appeal yesterday. [Litigation Daily]

At first glance, the Korean Air Passenger Settlement looks pretty good: $50 million in cash for class members. You have to dive very deep in the papers (it's nowhere in the notice) to find out that the attorneys are going to ask for $21.5 million of that cash. They justify this by valuing coupons with face value of $36 million at $36 million, but we know from the Class Action Fairness Act and In re HP Inkjet Printer Litig. that you're not allowed to do that. Tsk, tsk. (And, of course, 25% is likely excessive even if the settlement was worth $86 million, given that the lawsuit just piggybacked on a government antitrust investigation. But, of course, the court is never going to hear that unless a class member comes forward and objects, or retains counsel (perhaps pro bono counsel?) to represent them at the fairness hearing. The class consists of:

All persons and entities (excluding governmental entities, Defendants, and Defendants’ respective predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates) who purchased Passenger Air Transportation on [Korean Air or Asiana Airlines], or any predecessor, subsidiary, or affiliate of the Defendants, at any time during the time period January 1, 2000 through August 1, 2007. As used in this definition, “affiliates” means entities controlling, controlled by, or under common control with a Defendant [and does not include travel agents]. “Passenger Air Transportation” means passenger air transportation service purchased in the United States for flights originating in the United States and ending in the Republic of Korea (“Korea”) or flights originating in Korea and ending in the United States.

There is a claim form online if you want your cash and coupons; class members should get formal notice shortly. One of the lead class counsel is Jeff Westerman, who you might remember from his Milberg days for his role in the NVIDIA settlement bait-and-switch where he hired an expert witness to testify against letting class members recover what the settlement notice told them they'd recover. So one is skeptical when one reads in the settlement that "Korean Air and Class Counsel shall set the maximum coupon redemption value per ticket by mutual agreement."

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.

• Wednesday, I argued the case of Kazman v. Frontier Oil in Houston, which raises the issue of whether Texas law permits the "deal tax": the extortionate lawsuits over merger disclosures that get settled for pricy attorneys' fees and nothing of value to the shareholders that the attorneys are supposed to be representing. Thanks to client CEI attorney Sam Kazman, and to D. Wade Carvell, who was both extraordinarily generous and effective with his pro bono time on the case. [CEI press release; Kazman podcast; earlier on POL; more on POL]
• West Virginia medical monitoring settlement: $6.62 million for attorneys, up to $6.58 million in funding for medical examinations for class, but the money is likely to go to charity, and there will be no free exams after 2014. I'm quoted, after the West Virginia Record called me up for my analysis.
• Legal Newsline covers the Southwest Airlines drink voucher class action settlement. [Legal Newsline; earlier on POL]

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.).

A class member contacted me to complain about the settlement in Pearce v. Acosta. At first glance, it seems troubling: as described to me, the attorneys will get $425,000, and class members will get somewhere between $55,000 and $110,000. But the objection deadline is January 22, it's in Washington state court, and my attorneys and I are more than booked up between now and March with existing cases and obligations. We can't take the case, and don't have any insights beyond what's in this post; but if you're an attorney who might be interested in having this class member contact you, please E-MAIL me; leaving a blog post comment gives me no way to contact you and makes me question your judgment.

(Update: thanks to counsel who volunteered. The class member has opted out and been directed to the appropriate attorney running a parallel opt-in federal class action.)