Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Competitive Enterprise Institute (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Williamson v. McAfee; Kirby v. McAfee

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 13:57
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

CCAF is objecting to the approval of a settlement that allocates a disproportionate share of the settlement proceeds to the attorneys and has all of the hallmarks of an unfair, lawyer-driven settlement identified by the Ninth Circuit. Despite having class members' contact information and an awareness that consumer class actions such as this typically have single-digit claims rates, the parties required class members to file a cash-election claim to receive any cash benefit from the settlement. The non-electing class members will be sent a “value certificate” worth $11.50 in McAfee and Intel Security consumer products–coupons that the overwhelming majority of class members will never use. By structuring the settlement to provide such illusory relief, the defendant limited its payout while class counsel claimed an excessive fee award based on an inflated settlement benefit valuation derived from a fictional 100% claims rate.

Docket Number: 
5:14-cv-00158; 5:14-cv-02475
Case Status: 
Court Level: 
Proceedings, Orders, and Opinions Timeline: 
Date: 
Monday, November 28, 2016
Title: 
OBJECTION of Joshua D. Holyoak

Date: 
Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.