Eubank v. Pella Corporation (7th Cir. 2014)

Judge Posner writes a very interesting Seventh Circuit opinion reversing a settlement approval on multiple grounds. A lot of friends forwarded the decision to me. I got to write back that I had argued it.

This wasn't a Center for Class Action Fairness case; the Center is a non-profit and restricted by federal tax law to cases where the client would not be able to retain a private attorney. But an objector's counsel retained my private solo law practice to assist with the briefing for one of the objectors; I then argued the appeal in Chicago in April along with counsel for the class representatives frozen out of the deal.

But even if it's not a CCAF case, it's worth discussing here. The opinion is going to be very helpful to class members, including several CCAF cases pending on appeal. While a lot of the press coverage has focused on the scathing remarks Judge Posner had for the unique conflicts of interest of class counsel, the opinion more importantly also singled out as improper several practices the Center has repeatedly complained about: the use of separate funds for attorneys' fees with reversion to the defendant; the use of imaginary hypothetical valuations of settlements based on bogus assumptions about the number of claims that would be made; grouping disparate sets of class members (in this case, thirteen or so different categories of settlement relief) into a single settlement class; and "quickpay" provisions where class counsel takes its check early in the proceedings while the class is not entitled to relief until years down the road. And more.

Brian Wolfman points out that the opinion notes the silliness of approving settlements based on low opt-out rates.

The opinion also had kind words for the important role played by objectors in policing abusive class-action settlements. And as I joked to friends, this victory was particularly special for me, because the client wrote me a check.

Coverage: Forbes; Overlawyered; Chicago Daily Law Bulletin; Litigation Daily ($); Legal Newsline/Washington Examiner; ABA Journal; National Law Journal; law.com; law.com; Workplace Class Action Blog; Blawgletter.

Ninth Circuit win in Apple MagSafe case

The Apple MagSafe settlement paid the attorneys $3.1 million, but the class less than a quarter of that, yet the district court rubber-stamped settlement approval without addressing the objection to the self-dealing by class counsel, and, worse, imposed an illegal $15,000 bond to appeal the case. We posted the bond and appealed. (Briefing and oral argument here.) Thursday, the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration under the appropriate legal standards, and was especially critical of the abusive appeal bond. The most comprehensive coverage is by Daniel Fisher at Forbes.com. There are also stories at The Recorder and Law360 behind subscription paywalls.

I'll note that three times now federal courts have imposed excessive appeal bonds on Center appeals on the non sequitur of a ground that the appeal had little chance of success, and we're two for two in such cases, with the third one pending.

We're also four for four in Ninth Circuit cases, and nine for eleven in intermediate federal courts (eight for ten as appellants).

Some updates

• The Ninth Circuit rejected en banc review of our victory in HP Inkjet. Here, for the record, is our successful opposition to the en banc petitions.
  
• In Wyeth Securities, the district court reduced an excessive fee request by $3,037,500. That puts CCAF over the quarter-billion-dollar mark lifetime in attorney-fee reductions or rejections in cases where we objected. I can't say I'm thrilled with the opinion, which makes a number of legal mistakes that will get used against future objectors, doesn't fairly address our objection, and says gratuitously unfair things about me, but, as I discuss at Point of Law, I'd rather a judge say mean things about me and then increase the benefit to the class than for a judge to say nice things about me and then rubber stamp a bad settlement and fee request.
  
• We'll accept praise from our peers, certainly. It's behind a paywall, but those of you with Law360 subscriptions can read a piece by Jeffrey Jacobson analyzing and praising our "impressive" track record, and warning defendants that they need to take more care in crafting class-action settlements. He's absolutely wrong about HP Inkjet, though.
  
• Speaking of good press coverage, we expect to have some good news later this week.

Sixth Circuit victory: In re Dry Max Pampers Litigation

A great opinion protecting class members against predatory attorneys. Congratulations to CCAF attorney Adam Schulman (Georgetown Law '10), who won his first appellate oral argument.

Details at Point of Law. Earlier on this blog.

Press and blog coverage: Fisher @ Forbes; Adler @ Volokh; Bloomberg; Wolfman 1; Wolfman 2; Cincinnati Business Courier; ABA Journal; WSJ Law Blog ($); Litigation Daily ($); Law360 ($). And a local tv news report that demonstrates why watching tv news makes you stupider.

Law360 also runs a lengthy thinkpiece analyzing a run of our recent cases, calling our results "impressive."

$26.7 million victory for CCAF in Citigroup Securities case

Details at Point of Law.

Victory in HP Inkjet

A 2-1 decision of the Ninth Circuit agreed with us that the district court incorrectly applied the coupon-valuation provision of the Class Action Fairness Act in the HP Inkjet case. Details (and a list of press coverage) at Point of Law. After two appellate wins in 2011, and two in 2012, this is our third in 2013, and the year isn't half over.

This week's fairness hearing on the Southwest drink voucher class action settlement raised similar issues and discussed the import of the Inkjet decision; plaintiffs' counsel there claimed that they were told by Inkjet counsel that they plan to seek en banc review. If they do, the petition would be due next week.

Another victory for CCAF: Pecover v. EA Sports triples class payouts

You will recall that we objected to a class action settlement over EA Sports's Madden games: as in our successful Baby Products objection, the settlement did little to ensure that class members got paid, while the attorneys would get millions regardless whether any class members received any cash. We argued that class members should get first dibs on the settlement fund before money went to unrelated third-party charities. The court agreed in part, and the parties consented to modifying the settlement to permit both a tripling of the money available to consumers, and another thirty days for consumers to make claims. Coverage of the new notice (though not the litigation that led to that tripling) at Kotaku and Consumerist. Would it be too needy to ask for some blog love?

Already, the number of claims has doubled: combined with the tripling of claim amounts, we're looking at over a 500% increase in the amount of money going to consumers. In a just world, we'd get five sixths of the gigantic attorney fee (after all, class counsel ridiculed our objection and defended the degree to which their own clients were going to be shafted), but we'll settle for making a more modest request, to be paid from the $9.2 million class counsel has argued they are due to receive, with any amounts over our lodestar to be donated to the class or the Federal Judicial Center.

September doings

• Groupon settlement rejected on cy pres grounds last week after our objection. The attorneys would have received $2.125 million, the class maybe a twentieth of that.
  
• I argued the Baby Products case in the Third Circuit, and am cautiously optimistic for a good precedent in a case where the attorneys collected over $14 million and the class was due less than $3 million. Briefing.
  
• The fairness hearing in Johnson & Johnson has been postponed until October 18. We filed two expert reports demonstrating that the plaintiffs had failed to present Daubert-satisfactory expert evidence in support of a claim that the $0 settlement provided "substantial benefit" to shareholders.
  
• The Ninth Circuit, relying on opinions from two CCAF victories, struck down a settlement on cy pres grounds in Dennis v. Kellogg September 4, also holding that an attorneys' 38.9% share of a settlement ($2 million in this case) would be "clearly excessive."
  
• The Center filed with the IRS for stand-alone 501(c)(3) status. I'd like to express tremendous gratitude to everyone at Donors' Trust for all they did to incubate us.

Victory in the W.D. Washington: Classmates.com

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.

The court did so, deducting $100,000 from the class counsel's fee request and awarding it to the class. So if you're keeping score, class counsel tried to abuse the discovery process to prevent us from collecting a $40,000 fee, and ended up costing themselves $100,000 (plus whatever attorney time they wasted having to defend themselves in the sanctions motion and on their own discovery) in the process. The class will get $2.753 million in cash instead of $0.052 million in cash. The opinion by Judge Richard Jones generously praises us for being the attorneys most interested in class recovery. Congratulations to our patient client, Professor Krauss, and to attorney Dan Greenberg, who argued at the second fairness hearing.

April 18 press release

CENTER FOR CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS

ANNOUNCES MULTIPLE VICTORIES

WASHINGTON, DC - Today the Center for Class Action Fairness LLC announced multiple victories in class action objections it filed in five class action settlements that will result in class members receiving over $5 million more than what their class attorneys were willing to negotiate.

• In a securities class action over options backdating by Apple executives, the Center's objection to the diversion of $2.5 million of shareholder money to unrelated third parties affiliated with the lead class counsel resulted in a modification of the settlement to ensure that class members would be given first dibs on that money. In March, the parties confirmed that class members had fully claimed the additional $2.5 million, meaning that the class would receive over $16.5 million instead of $14 million. The Center's motion for an incentive payment to the objector and a share of the $2 million of attorneys' fees requested by class counsel is pending in the district court. The case is In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-06-5208-JF (N.D. Cal.).
• The Center successfully objected to a settlement of a consumer fraud class action against Classmates.com that would have paid $117 thousand in cash and coupons to class members, but $1.05 million to the class attorneys. As a result, the parties renegotiated the settlement last month to make it easier for class members to make claims and ensure that $2.5 million in cash will be paid to the class. Preliminary review of the modified settlement is pending in the district court. The case is In re Classmates.com Consolidated Litigation, No. 09-cv-0045-RAJ (W.D. Wash.).
• The Center successfully objected to a diversion of $500,000 cy pres to unrelated third parties in a class action settlement with Toyota over antitrust allegations when the district court ordered this month that that money instead be distributed to the class. The Center's objection to an excessive attorney-fee request from the common fund is pending, which could result in additional millions of dollars being distributed to class members. The case is In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, No. MDL 03-1532 (D. Me.).
• The Center objected to a settlement that would have distributed $1.5 million in nearly worthless coupons to millions of class members, but paid the attorneys $2.9 million. In In re HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, 2011 WL 1158635 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2011), the district court agreed with the Center that class counsel's economic expert had wildly exaggerated the value of the proposed injunctive relief, and reduced the award to the class attorneys to $2.1 million. The Center is pleased with the favorable language in the opinion, but is deciding whether to appeal to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to adopt a bright-line rule that it is inappropriate for attorneys to receive more than their putative class clients.
  
• In a case alleging that Costco Fuel and other gasoline retailers committed consumer fraud when they failed to disclose to consumers the law of physics that gasoline, like other liquids, expands with temperature, the parties announced a modified settlement that would provide $0 to the class while the class attorneys made a $10 million fee request. The Center renewed its objection to the settlement, presenting testimony from an economic expert, Dr. David Henderson, that class counsel's economic expert had inappropriately overvalued the worthless injunctive relief provided by the settlement. The Center further argued that it was inappropriate for the parties to expand the class without giving new notice to the new class members who had not previously had an opportunity to object. This month, the district court agreed with the last proposition, and ordered the parties to propose new notice and schedule a new fairness hearing. The case is In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., No. 07-MD-1840 (D. Kan.).

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. 

Press coverage of the Center's work is available at http://tedfrank.com/press.

The Center's lead attorney, Theodore H. Frank, is available for comment on these cases and other issues relating to class actions, lawsuit abuse, and the civil justice system.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
http://centerforclassactionfairness.blogspot.com

http://tedfrank.com

Follow the Center on Facebook!

Victory: court rejects Classmates.com settlement

We'd like to think our objection had at least a little to do with the end result.

This decision is not a big surprise after the court was severely critical of the settlement during the December 16 fairness hearing. We won't know for a while why the court rejected the settlement, but Judge Richard Jones today issued an order stating that he did so, that the parties should return to litigation, and that a formal opinion would be forthcoming. (The parties might reasonably murmur that they're hard pressed to have productive settlement negotiations until they know where they fell short in the court's eyes.)

In re Apple Inc. Securities Litigation: parties modify settlement

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.

Trial lawyers dismiss Grand Theft Auto appeal

The case that started me on this route is now over: plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal last week after voluntarily dismissing the court case February 22.

CCAF wins $2 million victory for consumers: perhaps more to come

We had objected to the Lonardo v. Travelers settlement for its disproportionate ratio of class benefits to attorneys' fees. On the eve of the fairness hearing, the parties modified the settlement so that class members who filed claims would get an additional $2 million, all of which would come out of the requested attorneys' fee—no small potatoes when only $2.8 million in claims were made. Still, we're talking about a settlement where the class gets $4.8 million and the attorneys get $4.6 million, so we renewed our objection today.

Good quotes from the Honda case

Quotes from the court's order. On the appropriateness of disparate class treatment (pp. 25-29):

Courts generally are wary of settlement agreements
where some class members are treated differently than
others. See, e.g., In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up
Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liability Litig. (“In re GMC Pick-
Up Litig.”), 55 F.3d 768, 808 (3rd Cir. 1995) (“One sign
that a settlement may not be fair is that some segments
of the class are treated differently from others.”).
Compare Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1021 (rejecting objection to
settlement where settlement “does not propose different
terms for different class members”). ...

As in Acosta [v. Trans Union, LLC, 243 F.R.D. 377 (C.D.
Cal. 2007)], the settlement here draws an arbitrary
distinction among class members with identical legal
claims and injuries, and allows some to receive a cash
award, and others only a DVD and limited rebate. This is
patently unfair, and counsels against approval of the
proposed settlement.

On coupons (pp. 30-32):

The primary relief offered by this settlement is the
$500 or $1000 rebate given to class members who purchase
another Honda or Acura over the next nineteen months.
Thus, the settlement is largely a “coupon settlement.”
See Fleury v. Richemont North America, Inc., No.
C-05-4525 EMC, 2008 WL 3287154, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6,
2008) (a coupon settlement is one where the relief
constitutes “a discount on another product or service
offered by the defendant in the lawsuit”). ...

The Court acknowledges the wide range of judicial and
scholarly criticism of coupon settlements cited by the
Objectors and amici, and concurs that such settlements
are generally disfavored. This is due to three common
problems with coupon settlements: “they often do not
provide meaningful compensation to class members; they
often fail to disgorge ill-gotten gains from the
defendant; and they often require class members to do
future business with the defendant in order to receive
compensation.” Figueroa v. Sharper Image Corp., 517 F.
Supp. 2d 1292, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2007), citing Christopher
R. Leslie, “The Need to Study Coupon Settlements in Class
Action Litigation,” 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1395, 1396-
97. See also Synfuel Techs., 463 F.3d at 654; In re
Mexico Money Transfer Litig., 267 F.3d 743, 748 (7th Cir.
2001); In re GMC Pick-Up Litig., 55 F.3d at 807-10 (3d
Cir. 1995); Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., No. CV 05-5644 GAF,
2005 WL 3967998, at *1 n. 1. ...

On valuation of coupon settlements:

Courts have generally rejected the idea
that the face value of coupons or rebates should be used
for settlement valuation purposes; “[c]ompensation in
kind is worth less than cash of the same nominal value.”
Acosta, 243 F.R.D. at 390, quoting In re Mexico Money
Transfer Litig., 267 F.3d at 748. See also In re GMC
Pick-Up Litig., 55 F.3d at 807. Where a coupon or rebate
is not freely transferable on the open market, as is the
case here, it has even less value. See In re Compact
Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litig., 216
F.R.D. 197, 221 n. 58 (D. Me. 2003); In re Lloyd’s Am.
Trust Fund Litig., No. 96 Civ. 1262 RWS, 2002 WL
31663577, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2002); Clement v. Am.
Honda Finance Corp., 176 F.R.D. 15, 27 (D. Conn. 1997).
Compare In re Mexico Money Transfer Litig., 267 F.3d at
748 (analyzing value of transferable coupons).

Plaintiffs’ argument that face value is the proper
measure ignores the basic economics of coupons and
rebates. “Coupons promote sales without lowering the
price to everyone (that is, holding a ‘sale’).” Menasha
Corp. v. News America Marketing In-Store, Inc., 354 F.3d
661, 662 (7th Cir. 2004). In the automobile context,
“[r]ebates are given to encourage purchases by reducing
the total amount of money the buyer needs to acquire the
new car or by providing the debtor a premium that can be
used for some purpose other than acquiring the new car.”
In re Gray, 382 B.R. 438, 442 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2008).
Since rebates and coupons aim to facilitate a sale to a
purchaser who would not otherwise purchase a product at a
higher price, the Court cannot, as Plaintiffs do, assume
that every sale to a class member “would have happened
anyway.” (Pls.’ Resp. to Objs. at 15.) Class members
may purchase new Honda or Acura vehicles only “because
they fe[el] beholden to use the certificates,” not
because they would have otherwise. In re GMC Pick-Up
Litig., 55 F.3d at 808.

The Court also notes that the coupons are not only
worth less than face value to class members, but they
cost AHM less as well. If many class members do in fact
take advantage of the rebates offered by Options A and B,
the Settlement can result in a “tremendous sales bonanza”
for AHM. In re GMC Pick-Up Litig., 55 F.3d at 808,
quoting Bloyed v. General Motors Corp., 881 S.W.2d 422,
431 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994). For each class member who
purchases another Honda or Acura who would not have done
so without the settlement rebate, AHM will experience a
net benefit.

On the use of lodestar to calculate fees:

While the lodestar method of awarding fees is permissible under
CAFA, the Court has the discretion to use either a
percentage or lodestar method in awarding fees, and is
particularly wary of using the lodestar method here. See
Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1029; Fleury, 2008 WL 3287154, at *2-
*3. The lodestar amount is particularly inappropriate
where, as here, the benefit achieved for the class is
small and the lodestar award large. See, e.g., Create-ACard,
Inc. v. Intuit, Inc., No. C 07-06452 WHA, 2009 WL
3073920 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2009). ...

Under the terms
of the settlement, there is no certainty that class
members will receive any cash payments or rebates at all,
but class counsel will receive a three million dollar
payment regardless of whether one or 10,000 class members
file valid claims. Since there is no guarantee that AHM
will pay any money out of the settlement to either class
members or a cy pres beneficiary, to award three million
dollars to class counsel who may have achieved no
financial recovery for the class would be unconscionable.

Does a small number of objectors demonstrate approval?

“However, a combination
of observations about the practical realities of class
actions has led a number of courts to be considerably
more cautious about inferring support from a small number
of objectors to a sophisticated settlement.” In re GMC
Pick-Up Litig., 55 F.3d at 812, citing In re Corrugated
Container Antitrust Litig., 643 F.2d 195, 217-18 (5th
Cir. 1981); In re General Motors Corp. Engine Interchange
Litig., 594 F.2d 1106, 1137 (7th Cir. 1979). “[A] low
number of objectors is almost guaranteed by an opt-out
regime, especially one in which the putative class
members receive notice of the action and notice of the
settlement offer simultaneously.” Ellis v. Edward D.
Jones & Co., L.P., 527 F. Supp. 2d 439, 446 (W.D. Pa.
2007). ...

Plaintiffs attack many of the Objectors’
counsel because they have represented objectors in other
actions in the past. (Id. at 17.) This has no greater
bearing on the merits of the objections raised than a
plaintiff’s counsel’s experience in filing class action
suits speaks to the merits of claims he brings.

Victory in Honda case

At Monday's fairness hearing, Judge Phillips upheld our objection to the coupon settlement; Legal Newsline has coverage. Here is our reply brief, and we'll update this post with the court's order when it's available.

Update: National Law Journal coverage and WSJ Law Blog coverage.

Saturday update: The court's order was released late Friday.

Court strikes down Ameritrade settlement

$1.87 million in attorneys' fees for a worthless settlement will not be collected; Judge Vaughn Walker denied settlement approval.

From the perspective of the class, the worst-case scenario may be realized if following this denial of final settlement approval the case were to fail on dispositive motion. But in that event, class would end up essentially in the same situation it would be if final settlement approval were approved: with nothing. Because the purported benefits to the class do not warrant settlement approval, the court DENIES final approval of the proposed settlement.