So, the attorneys got $2.7 million; as-yet-unidentified charities will get $0.4 million; and the class will get a money-back guarantee useful only to those class members who happen to save two-year-old diaper packaging and receipts and didn't previously request refunds. (Leave aside that the money-back guarantee is indistinguishable from the marketing campaigns P&G uses to sell Swiffer and Fixodent without the requirement of an injunction.) Can such a settlement be approved as fair? Moreover, can this lawsuit brought for monetary damages it be approved as a Rule 23(b)(2) mandatory class action settlement? And can the class sweep in people who happened to purchase diapers for the first time after the objection deadline? The appellate brief filed by the Center for Class Action Fairness yesterday says "No" to all three questions.
Sixth Circuit brief in Pampers Dry Max class action
- Evading CAFA's scrutiny of coupons: In re Online DVD Rental
- Breaking: federal Kentucky fen-phen convictions upheld
- Around the web, May 1
- Fox Business on class action settlements
- Gallucci v. Boiron
- Cy pres in the appellate courts: In re Lupron and In re Baby Products
- Hans Bader: Ambulance chasers feast on Americans with Disabilities Act claims
- Settlements in Kansas "hot fuel" litigation MDL
- $7M for attorneys, $0.5M for class
- New Featured Discussion:"Class actions: rife with abuse or an important legal safeguard?"
- Blessing v. Sirius XM racial quota update
- Around the web, April 11
- "Attorney fee-only" bankruptcy plans
- Prospective injunctive relief class actions and McNair v. Synapse Group Inc.
- Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
Center for Legal Policy at the