Procter & Gamble (but not the plaintiffs) filed an en banc petition seeking further review of the 2-1 decision striking down the ludicrous attorney-benefit-only settlement in Dry Max Pampers. CCAF filed its opposition yesterday. I'm optimistic that the petition will be denied; it relies too heavily on a dissent that simply ignored precedent and problems with the settlement and class certification. But perhaps we'll get a certiorari petition, too.
Dry Max Pampers Litigation update
- Two podcasts
- "A Facebook Deal That Needs Unfriending"
- FACTA shakedown files: Albright v. Bi-State Dev. Agency
- CAFA violation in Korean Air Passenger settlement
- The cy pres morass and In re BankAmerica Corp. Securities Litigation
- Dennis v. Kellogg on remand
- Silverman v. Motorola
- Marek v. Lane & Dry Max Pampers in today's NY Times
- $3M more for Wyeth shareholders after CCAF objection
- Speaking at 2013 ABA Class Action National Institute
- Richardson v. L'Oreal class action settlement
- CCAF Sixth Circuit victory in Pampers Dry Max
- $26.7 million victory for CCAF in Citigroup Securities case
- M&A challenges and attorneys' fees