Cy Pres You'll Read This

Learn about the state of cy pres law without having to pay for a CLE class!

Today, Washington Legal Foundation published a short and useful working paper authored by James M. Beck and Rachel B. Weil titled "Cy Pres" Awards: Is the End Near for a Legal Remedy With No Basis in Law? 

The paper effectively summarizes recent litigation demonstrating courts' skepticism of such awards, wherein settlement funds are paid to third parties instead of to class members.

Beck and Weil highlight some CCAF-generated precedents, such as Chief Justice Roberts's statement in Marek v. Lane, 134 S. Ct. 8 (2013), the Third Circuit's opinion in In re Baby Prods. Antitrust Litig., 708 F.3d 163 (3d Cir. 2013), and the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Redman v. Radioshack Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18181, 2014 WL 4654477 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014). (Credit is also due to Bexis, the blogging nom de guerre of Mr. Beck, whose post "Sunsetting Cy Pres" drew attention to the Redman ratio's applicability to cy pres remedies just one day after Redman v. Radioshack was decided.)

The rationale for having a defendant settle class members' claims by paying money to third parties is that it would be impossible to compensate the class members themselves. But it's a reverse Robin Hood, wherein money that belongs to the aggrieved nationwide mass of class members is taken and funneled to well-connected recipients, like the plaintiffs' lawyers' preferred local charities and alma maters. Sometimes, it isn't even true that class members can't be located!

What do you think about cy pres? How do you think it should be pronounced: see pray, or sigh pray?

Leave your comments below.

Oral Argument in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc.

Are you trick-and/or-treating in downtown Chicago this Halloween?

If so, visit the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to watch oral argument in Pearson v. NBTY, Inc., No. 14-1198 (7th Cir.). That's 9:30 a.m. in the Main Courtroom on October 31, 2014, at 219 S. Dearborn Street.

Ted Frank will be arguing for appellants in full costume (i.e. business formal court attire) as The Class Action Avenger.

You can read the background about this settlement in our last post about it. Basically, it's under $900,000 for class members, $1.1 million for third parties, and $4.5 million for plaintiffs' lawyers. Class members also get some labeling changes to the sued-over glucosamine bottles, changes which are alleged by the plaintiffs' lawyers to be worth $21 million. For example, instead of saying "Osteo Bi-Flex works by providing the nourishment your body needs to build cartilage, lubricate, and strengthen your joints," the label could say "Osteo Bi-Flex works by providing the nourishment your body needs to support cartilage, lubricate, and strengthen your joints" (italics added free-of-charge). See the opening brief for what "is perhaps the best 13,000-word summary of CCAF philosophy."

Plaintiffs, calling this settlement a "tremendous result," cross-appealed when the district court awarded them $2.1 million in attorneys' fees and expenses instead of $4.5 million. That $4.5 million, after all, "was negotiated at arm's-length by the parties" and, since the requested fees were only up to 2.56 times greater than the plaintiffs' lawyers' billing rate for the labor they expended, the requested fees were "certainly not excessive."

The briefing proceeded as follows:

• Opening Brief of Objectors-Appellants
• Response Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants (1 of 2) (2 of 2)
• Response Brief of Defendants-Appellees
• Response and Reply Brief of Objectors-Appellants
• Reply Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants (1 of 2) (2 of 2)

Oral argument audio will be available at this link on October 31 or November 1: follow our blog for updates.

Opening Brief in Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings

Candy corn, pumpkin pie, egg nog . . . no wonder that three months from now we'll all be joining gyms.

So let's inaugurate the 2014 Holiday Season with the opening brief in this appeal of an unfair settlement over gym memberships: Gascho v. Global Fitness Holdings, LLC, No. 14-3798 (6th Cir.). (You might remember this settlement from November 2013, when it was winding its way through the district court.)

Joshua Blackman, a class member, Texas citizen, law professor, former Sixth Circuit clerk, current client of CCAF, blogger, and author, objected to this settlement, which paid $2.4 million to class counsel and representatives, yet only $1.6 million to the class: a Redman ratio¹ of 60%.

Main Question: Is it fair for a settlement to so privilege attorneys with "preferential treatment" over their clients? Sixth Circuit law suggests the answer is, "No."

Bonus Question: What is the value to the class of a settlement that pays the class $1.6 million? The answer: $8.5 million, according to the magistrate judge below, who literally split the difference between the amount that class members actually received and the $15.5 million they would have received if every single one of them--even those who hadn't been notified of the settlement--submitted a claim. Respectfully, CCAF and Professor Blackman believe that's a legally erroneous approach.

--

¹"The ratio that is relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fee that the parties agreed to is the ratio of (1) the fee to (2) the fee plus what the class members received." Redman v. Radioshack Corp., -- F.3d --, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 18181, *16, 2014 WL 4654477 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014) (Posner, J.). The higher the ratio, the worse the settlement.