Southern District of New York assistance?

I've filed an objection in the Southern District of New York to an attorney-fee request that is excessive by tens of millions of dollars, and could use help in the Southern District of New York. Details at Point of Law.

Update: new postcard notice has gone out; there has been much press coverage. More details at Point of Law.

Birthday wishes

Frank Bednarz, who was with CCAF in the early going, and has since moved on to more lucrative intellectual property litigation, wins the Internet today by writing on my Facebook page:

As a member of the injured class of overlooked December birthdays, I have won for you a [voucher, certificate, valuable redemption offer] that entitles you to enjoy all of the Christmastime sales on or around your birthday in perpetuity. Although the face value of this victory is infinite, our expert economist calculated the value over the next 20 years (using aggressive growth rates and no time discount rate), finding that the class will gain approximately $200 billion over this period. However, I am only requesting lodestar for myself and my crack team of 30 paralegals, with a lodestar multiplier of 8. This is incredibly modest on cross-check; slightly less than 0.1% of class benefit over the next 20 years. Mathematically, fees approach 0% of the non-time discounted, boundless value of settlement. 

Happy 101st anniversary of Roald Amundsen reaching the South Pole!

October and November doings

In addition to our Supreme Court amicus and our MagSafe appellate brief, we've kept busy over the last two months.

• We had oral arguments in the Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits on the Blessing v. Sirius XM, Pampers Dry Max, and HP Inkjet appeals. Only Inkjet is available online.
• The district court ruled against us in Johnson & Johnson after some additional briefing; we've appealed, and (assuming that the court orders more than a token amount of attorneys' fees; the fee award has not yet been made) will raise the question of first impression of whether securities lawyers who regularly rely upon the efficient market hypothesis can ask a court to rely upon an expert opinion contradicting it when it is inconvenient for their theory of attorney-fee recovery.
• We filed our reply brief in the Online DVD appeal.
• We filed our reply brief in the Texas Frontier Oil appeal over a $0 settlement, which has gotten some press attention. Oral argument is scheduled in Houston in January 16. I was a Bellaire debater, but this is my first time in a Texas court.
• $2.7 million was paid to class members $3.93 at a time in the Classmates case. This is paltry, but more than the $56,000 or so class counsel was going to be happy with had we not successfully. objected. [Ars Technica]

We filed interesting objections in two new cases in California federal courts over the last few days, and I'll discuss over the course of the week.

Amicus brief in Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles

As I've previously written:

The Class Action Fairness Act was intended to protect consumers against the unfair class action settlements rubber-stamped in state courts by creating federal jurisdiction in nationwide class actions with more than the $5 million jurisdictional minimum at stake. Some plaintiffs' lawyers have attempted to avoid federal court by purporting to limit the rights of their absent clients to less than $5 million, notwithstanding any claims they might be able to make, with the idea of negotiating an attorney-friendly settlement in state court. Most courts reject this tactic, most notably Judge Easterbrook in the 2011 Back Doctors decision, noting that any such disclaimer violates Rule 23(a)(4)'s adequacy requirement. The Eighth Circuit, however, has honored such forum-shopping attempts, resulting in numerous remands to the judicial hellhole of Texarkana, Arkansas.

[On August 31], the Supreme Court granted certiorari to an Eighth Circuit denial of an appeal of such a remand, The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles. The Center for Class Action Fairness filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari, making us one for three in cases where we've filed amicus briefs in support of certiorari.

Monday, we filed an amicus brief in support of the merits with the generous pro bono help of McGuire Woods. Further information will eventually be posted at SCOTUSblog.

In other Supreme Court / Andrew Trask news, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to our former client, Kimberly Craven, who unsuccessfully appealed our unfortunate loss in the D.C. Circuit in the Cobell litigation. We can expect a denial of the weaker Good Bear petition next week.

Opening brief in Ninth Circuit MagSafe appeal

In the In re Apple MagSafe Power Adapter Litigation, the attorneys walked away with $3.1 million, while the class got less than $1 million, and likely less than a quarter of what the attorneys got. The district court (Judge Ware in the N.D. Cal.) not only rubber-stamped the settlement while ignoring the Bluetooth precedent, but then issued an order to protect the illegitimate settlement, requiring a punitive appeal bond or the dismissal of any appeals. This deterred three of the five appellants, with a fourth being sanctioned for failing to dismiss his appeal. But Marie Newhouse, represented by me and attorneys with the Center for Class Action Fairness, held firm in her objection, and, after some delaying tactics by the plaintiffs, the opening brief was filed today, as we test whether the Bluetooth principles have teeth or can be ignored by district courts and trial lawyers with impunity. To this add another few questions: when is it permissible to have a "claims-made" settlement that pays the attorneys regardless of whether class members make claims or, as in this case, are deterred from making claims by artificial hoop-jumping requirements? Can class counsel take credit for "injunctive relief" that has the defendant doing what it was already doing before the complaint was filed? Is class counsel entitled to a commission on payments to the settlement administrator? Earlier: objection; appeal bond hypocrisy. The case is Kitagawa v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-15782 (9th Cir.).

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.

In re Johnson & Johnson Shareholder Derivative Litigation

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").