A June 1 House hearing on class actions included testimony from Professor Martin Redish and John Beisner. Both cited the CCAF victory in Nachshin in discussing the problems of cy pres; Beisner also cited CCAF victories in True v. Honda and Sobel v. Hertz in discussing the additional scrutiny given to coupon settlements under the Class Action Fairness Act. Of course, some parties are evading CAFA scrutiny by simply not calling their coupons coupons. Earlier on cy pres. [Legal Newsline; BLT]
House hearing on class actions
Related Entries:
- More Citigroup Securities coverage
- Courts beginning to reject M&A strike suits
- Citigroup Securities update
- Standard Fire v. Knowles
- No en banc in Lane v. Facebook
- American Express v. Italian Colors
- Baby Products press coverage
- Ahmed v. McDonald's
- Third Circuit victory for CCAF in Baby Products settlement
- In re Bayer Corp.: $5.1M for attorneys, <$0.5M for class?
- Is PSLRA litigation so risky as to require a 4x multiplier?
- More from Fisher on Citigroup class counsel contract-attorney scandal
- Class action settlements in the news
- In re Southwest Airlines Voucher Litigation class action settlement
- Press coverage of Citigroup Securities Litigation contract-lawyer fee request
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.