The Cincinnati Business Courier reports on the objections to the P&G and Bluetooth settlements which gave plantiff lawyers far more in fees than the class members who were harmed.
Among the prior legal decisions referred to in support of its objection, Adam Schulman at the Center for Class Action Fairness cited an Aug. 19 decision by U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It overruled a lower court’s approval of a settlement in a case that sought damages for people who bought Bluetooth headsets. That settlement gave plaintiffs’ lawyers $800,000 in fees, while the plaintiffs got $12,000. Other class members got nothing. The three-judge panel sent it back to the district court to consider the “reasonableness of the attorneys’ fee request in light of the degree of success attained.”
Ted Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness, had objected to the Bluetooth settlement and argued the successful appeal. The law is clear that the Dry Max settlement should also be rejected, and his organization will appeal if it isn’t, he said.
Read the full article at the Cincinnati Business Courier.