I'm not a Missouri lawyer, but I'm quoted in a Missouri Lawyers Media story on class action settlements, though not given a chance to rebut the ludicrous claim of the plaintiffs' lawyer that the objection to the rip-off Bachman v. A.G Edwards "proceeds from a false premise." Even the sloppy Missouri Court of Appeal decision found that the "vouchers" were "coupons"; they just refused to address the failure of the Missouri lower court to follow the law and value the coupons at something other than face value. Literally refused: it acknowledged that we had made the argument, and then did not rule on it or give any reason for rejecting it.
"Missouri lawyers weigh in on class action concerns"
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Third Circuit argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen
- More on 2006 Louisiana environmental law's jackpot justice
- Dewey v. Volkswagen oral argument tomorrow
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- CCAF Seventh Circuit briefing on derivative shareholder suit standards
- Day v. Persels & Associates
- Bad typography evidence of bad faith?
- PR efforts in atrazine litigation
- Apple class actions
- Cobell v. Salazar oral argument in DC Circuit
- Herzfeld & Rubin, Volkswagen, and Stockholm Syndrome
- Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
- Behind the paywall
- "A Public Letter From the Cobell Lawyers Prompts Ethics and Harassment Concerns"