PointofLaw.com
 Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  
   
 
   

 

 

Blessing v. Sirius XM Second Circuit argument tomorrow morning

| No Comments


Class action attorneys collected $13 million in a settlement they claimed was worth $180 million. The settlement didn't actually pay any money to the class; it just required Sirius XM to offer its service for $12.95/month until December 31, 2011, and pretended that class members would have paid $14.95/month if not for the settlement. Except Sirius XM customers don't pay $14.95 a month even after December 31, 2011; for example, I just subscribed to Sirius XM for less than $4.17 a month—a rate cheaper than what was available in 2011. If you offer a coupon for a Big Mac for $12.95, how much should you value the coupon when class members can get the Big Mac for a lot cheaper without a coupon? The Center for Class Action Fairness argues that the Class Action Fairness Act requires the settlement to be valued at $0, which would make a $13 million settlement where the attorneys get 100% of the benefit per se unfair, especially given the Bluetooth signs of self-dealing. To boot, the district court's procedures and rulings violated Rules 23(g) and 23(h); CIR and PLF filed amicus briefs on the racial quota arguments of the district court. Defendant Sirius XM, represented by Jones Day, perhaps realizes that the settlement is indefensible on the merits, so thinks outside the box and asks the Court to hold the case "equitably moot," which makes no sense outside of the bankruptcy context, or perhaps even in the bankruptcy context, as our reply brief explains.

The Wall Street Journal covered the case earlier, as did Reuters.

(The Center for Class Action Fairness is not affiliated with the Manhattan Institute.)

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.

Related Entries:

 

 


Isaac Gorodetski
Project Manager,
Center for Legal Policy at the
Manhattan Institute
igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org

Katherine Lazarski
Press Officer,
Manhattan Institute
klazarski@manhattan-institute.org

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.