Why? Well, Fred and Fran Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute are objecting to an unreasonable nuisance settlement in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, No. 04-cv-1310 (D. Md.). As the objection notes, the class notice indicated that the attorneys would ask for 25% of the settlement fund—but their actual request would give the attorneys $2.142 million and the class $2.27 million. Why is it that class action attorneys suing for fraud are allowed to give class notice far more misleading than what they claim they should be allowed to sue for? (Meanwhile, not only does the settlement website fail to include the motion for fee request, the fee request itself fails to identify the appropriate statutory provision and standards of the PSLRA, and is wildly inflated under the law as a result.) The fairness hearing is October 25.
Mr. and Mrs. Smith go to Baltimore
- New Featured Discussion:"Class actions: rife with abuse or an important legal safeguard?"
- Around the web, April 11
- What does the Baylor Law data leak tell us about affirmative action?
- "Attorney fee-only" bankruptcy plans
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
- Third Circuit argument in Dewey v. Volkswagen
- Dewey v. Volkswagen oral argument tomorrow
- How much is the Bluetooth settlement injunction worth?
- CCAF Seventh Circuit briefing on derivative shareholder suit standards
- Around the web, March 13
- Plaintiffs' lawyers protect their cartel by bringing antitrust suit
- Day v. Persels & Associates
- Bad typography evidence of bad faith?
- Apple class actions
- 0.1% claim rate in "successful" class action
Center for Legal Policy at the