A state appeals court has approved a $1.1 billion settlement in the California consumer class action case against Microsoft, one of many parallel consumer antitrust class actions against the tech giant filed in states across the country. Plaintiffs lawyers at Townsend and Townsend and Crew and other firms are likely to share roughly $101 million in fees for representing software buyers in the state; class members were offered vouchers good on future purchases, which is not how the lawyers are taking their pay, of course. (Marie-Anne Hogarth, “Law Firms Closer to Raking In $101M in Fees in Microsoft Case”, The Recorder, Jan. 12). Oh well, at least it doesn’t sound as bad as the Minnesota settlement.
Posts Tagged ‘antitrust’
Terrell Owens: Now Specter wants in
Sen. Arlen Specter has risen to the level of self-parody and “accused the NFL and the Philadelphia Eagles of treating Terrell Owens unfairly, and might refer the matter to the antitrust subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” The AP story quotes a couple of experts as noting that there isn’t an antitrust problem in much more polite terms than I would have. (AP/ESPN, Nov. 29 (hat-tip L.S.)). Owens seems to provoke a lot of silliness: see Nov. 24 and links therein.
Batch of reader letters
After too long a hiatus, we’ve resumed our separate letters to the editor feature. Among topics this time: a teacher writes to protest our 2001 coverage of her lawsuit over a parent’s injurious handshake; reflections on the recent $22.6 million settlement of a claim that “toxic mold” from wet building lumber had caused a child’s autism; a reader doesn’t agree that the “happy hour” antitrust case against taverns in Madison, Wis. was lacking in merit; and this site gets used as instructional material in a class on liability issues in law enforcement. More good letters remain in the pipeline.
Update: suing Madison taverns again
As readers may recall (May 2; Mar. 29, 2004) a judge this spring dismissed an antitrust class action suit filed by a Minneapolis law firm which had claimed that Madison, Wis. campus-area taverns unlawfully colluded to discontinue “happy hour” and similar discounts. As the taverns showed, the demise of the happy hour discounts came after pressure from university and government-sponsored groups which alleged that the discounts contributed to overuse of alcohol on campus. Now, nothing discouraged, the same law firm is back, suing in federal court this time. Its action “accuses 25 downtown bars of charging patrons excessive amounts for drinks, and names Chancellor John Wiley and two city officials for conspiring” in the price rises. (Daily Cardinal, Oct. 6)(via Althouse).
“The Next Sandra Day”
I’ve got an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (also, conveniently, featured on the Journal’s mostly-free companion site OpinionJournal.com), pointing out that retiring Justice O’Connor was remarkably outspoken in criticizing the evils of excessive litigation, and suggesting that President Bush may wish to pick a successor who shares these concerns. I also discuss some very revealing comments made by the Senate minority leader last week: as OpinionJournal.com sums up the implications, “Harry Reid may be willing to give up Roe v. Wade to get a trial lawyer on the Supreme Court”. (Walter Olson, “The Next Sandra Day”, OpinionJournal.com, Jul. 7; same article at subscriber-only WSJ site).
Also new at Point of Law
If you’re not visiting our sister site Point of Law regularly you’re missing out on an awful lot. F’rinstance: contingency-fee tax collection in Mississippi, courtesy of that state’s AG; Alan Dershowitz’s coincidental whereabouts during the Larry Summers flap; liability reform in Georgia, South Carolina and Missouri, and (on asbestos) in Texas and Florida; topical TrackBack spam pings; the “Constitution in Exile” brouhaha; overtime lawsuits; crying wolf on class action reform; pressure for cooperation in white-collar crime cases; how Westchester County, N.Y. residents subsidize wildman enviro-litigator Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and California residents subsidize trial-lawyer front groups as well as propaganda for antitrust enforcement; jury selection in Scotland; several posts on The American Lawyer’s recent special issue, “Plaintiff’s Power”; the supposed hypocrisy of lawsuit reformers; high-tech shareholder suits; much, much more from Ted on silicosis doctors’ testimony; Mike DeBow on Ford Crown Victoria suits; and Jim Copland on the Second Circuit’s dismissal of a tobacco class action. And don’t miss Ted’s priceless story of what happened to ATLA’s own insurance company (did you really think those guys would be good at running one?).
Update: Judge dismisses “happy hour” antitrust case
Last year, after taverns in Madison, Wisconsin bowed to pressure from official programs discouraging youth drinking and agreed to end “happy hour” discounts in the university town, a law firm from Minneapolis swooped down to file an antitrust suit demanding millions for the offense of having colluded to charge higher prices (see Mar. 29, 2004). Now, however, Circuit Judge Angela B. Bartell has dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding that the bar owners had acted against their will under regulatory constraint. An alderman who represents the downtown area where most of the bars are located “said bar owners had racked up more than $250,000 in legal fees defending themselves”; given our lack of a loser-pays rule, they have no expectation that either attorney Steven Uhr or the three students on whose behalf he filed the action will chip in to defray any of those outlays. (Ryan J. Foley, “Judge: Bars didn’t fix price of drinks”, AP/Capital Times, Apr. 8; Megan Costello, “Judge dismisses drink special suit”, Badger Herald, Apr. 8).
Update: Judge OKs cosmetics class action settlement
“A federal judge yesterday approved a massive giveaway of free makeup and perfume at cosmetics counters across the country as part of the settlement of an antitrust lawsuit against cosmetics makers and department stores…. She also awarded $24 million in attorney’s fees to plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in the case.” (Josh Gerstein, “Judge Approves Cosmetics Settlement”, New York Sun, Mar. 9). For earlier coverage of the controversial settlement, see Jul. 21, 2003, Apr. 14, May 19, and Dec. 3, 2004, and Jan. 14, 2005.
Tobacco-cartel challengers
…profiled by Forbes. Defending the cartel? New York AG Eliot Spitzer, fearless watchdog over antitrust infractions (except when he isn’t). (Scott Woolley, “Trustbuster”, Forbes, Feb. 28).
Fee in Visa/MC class action, cont’d
David Giacalone has some apposite things to say (Jan. 26) about a court’s recent decision to allow a mere $220 million in fees, rather than the more than $600 million sought, to lawyers who’d represented the plaintiff class of merchants in an antitrust suit against Visa and MasterCard (see Jan. 24). In particular, he notes the claim of the class counsel (on its website) that its billing rates “are typically significantly less than those charged by larger firms”; the willingness of big-name legal academics like Arthur Miller and Jack Coffee to hire themselves out to class counsel to bless the fees; and the dubious impact on consumers of some of the injunctive relief obtained by the class (he notes that he can’t use his debit card at Wal-Mart any more).