- “David Marcus on The History of the Modern Class Action” [Andrew Trask]
- Ted Frank profiled [American Lawyer] Related: “Expert in legal-fee fight blasts ‘make believe’ game over cost of contract lawyers to do doc review” [ABA Journal; CCAF on games case]
- “Statutory Penalties and Class Actions: Social Justice or Legalized Extortion?” [Paul Karlsgodt, DULR Online]
- Lawyers in Ford Explorer case claimed $500M benefit to class, on way to pocketing $25M fee; actual coupon redemptions $74,000 [Lawrence Schonbrun, American Thinker]
- Genesis Health Care Corp. v. Symczyk: can defendant moot class action by settling lead plaintiff’s complaint? [Karlsgodt, Trask, Fed Soc]
- Incentive problems of cy pres: a mini-roundup [Jennifer Johnston comment, JLEP, via Trask, Alison Frankel/Reuters on Ben & Jerry’s case, PoL on U. of South Carolina, Daniel Fisher on Facebook case]
- Reactions to SCOTUS ruling in Comcast v. Behrend [Richard Epstein, Point of Law; Max Kennerly with a plaintiff’s view; Fed Soc podcast with Ken Lee (Jenner & Block); Manhattan Institute podcast with Ted Frank]
Filed under: class actions, cy pres, South Carolina, Supreme Court, Ted Frank
One Comment
Regarding the Ford Explorer class action suit, is there any barrier to a judge requiring that an independent agency keep track of used coupons, then that agency remitting a percentage of the value of the used coupons to the plaintiff’s attorneys? The award to the attorneys is thus contingent upon consumers actually using coupons. I can see to changed behaviors arising if this takes place. First, no awards involving coupons for consumers. Second, attorneys or their representatives energetically encouraging consumers to use their coupons. The latter would put plaintiffs’ attorneys in the unusual position of advocating greater revenues for the defendant, and could well be a conflict of interest.