Law 360 reports on CCAF's objection to the HP Inkjet settlement which did not benefit class members.
Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness, representing the objectors, also fought back against HP’s claims that the objections were brought in bad faith. Frank pointed to the existence of the retainer agreement and HP’s opposition to an advantageous motion to decertify the class.
One of the changes made after the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the first deal was the removal of a clear-sailing clause, under which HP waived objections to attorneys’ fees that do not exceed a negotiated limit. The objectors say Cotchett’s side agreement with HP for the Autonomy work suggests that the removal of the clause was a sham, pointing to HP’s “token” resistance to the attorneys’ fees request.
The objectors claimed HP’s litigation conduct, in failing to actually oppose the fees, suggests that the clear-sailing clause was removed from the settlement only on paper, and that there was an undisclosed side agreement not to make any serious effort to challenge class counsel’s fee request.
Read the full article at Law 360.