Posts Tagged ‘class actions’

Update: Diet Coke sweetener class actions

We’ve been critical of would-be class action lawsuits claiming that Coca-Coca violates consumers’ rights by sweetening its fountain version of Diet Coke with a mixture of aspartame and saccharin, rather than aspartame alone as in the supermarket version. Now the Missouri Supreme Court has rejected class-action status for such a lawsuit, reversing a lower court; it “said the classification was overly broad, because it could have covered an indefinite number of people, many of whom did not really care how their Diet Coke was sweetened.” (AP/Kansas City Star, Apr. 15).

Congratulations to David Nieporent

For being the first Overlawyered blogger to have a post cited in a federal case. In Taylor v. XM Satellite Radio, Inc., 533 F.Supp.2d 1151 (N.D. Ala. 2007), XM argued that the class action demanding a refund for a 24-hour outage was moot because they offered refunds well before the class certification motion was made. Plaintiffs disputed this, arguing they did not know about the refund offer until after they moved for class certification. One questions the relevance of the time of the certification motion (and, indeed, the court found this factual claim irrelevant) given that the refund offer was to the entire class rather than just to the named plaintiffs, but one reason that the court expressed skepticism at the attorneys’ claims was the existence of an Overlawyered post by David discussing the refunds and the ludicrousness of the suit. Case dismissed for mootness, though the court also noted that XM had no contractual obligation to provide continuous uninterrupted service.

Mel Weiss to plead guilty

WSJ: “Melvyn Weiss, the onetime powerhouse shareholders lawyer, has struck a deal to agree to plead guilty in a case alleging improper kickbacks, according to a person familiar with the investigation.” We’ve been covering the Milberg Weiss scandals on this site since they broke; my WSJ op-ed “Inside Milberg’s Credenza” is here. More:

According to a statement released Thursday by the defense lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, Mr. Weiss will plead guilty to participating in a criminal conspiracy to pay a share of legal fees to plaintiffs in shareholder suits brought by Milberg Weiss. Such kickbacks are improper because they give plaintiffs representing a class of all shareholders an incentive to accept a deal that might not be best for the class.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Mr. Weiss faces a sentence of up to 33 months in prison. Mr. Weiss has also agreed to pay a total of $10 million in fines and penalties, according to the statement.

(Jonathan Glater, NYT). More at WSJ law blog (Weiss: “I deeply regret my conduct”) including a copy of the plea agreement and government statement, both PDF.

The firm of Milberg Weiss, formerly Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, famous for shedding indicted names as an ecdysiast sheds clothes on stage, is now down to plain old Milberg LLP, and will presumably be able to stop there, the Milberg after whom it was named being nearly twenty years deceased. (Bumped 1:50 p.m.)

And: World-class chutzpah morsel from the NYLJ: “If Mr. Weiss had proceeded to trial, his defense was expected to argue that he was so preoccupied with humanitarian and charity work during the charged period that Messrs. Bershad and Schulman had been able to carry on the kickback scheme without his knowledge.” In the plea agreement, Weiss stipulates that he was in effective control of the firm and its operations and party to the conspiracy, and agrees to forfeit a sum of nearly $10 million which he acknowledges is less than what he gained from the illegal conduct.

Plus: Portfolio:

Weiss made staggering profits from the kickback scheme. According to the indictment, his share of the law firms profits from 1983 to 2005 amounted to more than $209 million. …

Sanford Dumain, a member of the Milberg L.L.P. executive committee, said, “Having previously believed former leaders’ assurances of their innocence, the firm is now seeking to find a fair and appropriate resolution of remaining issues so that we can continue to work on behalf of injured investors and consumers.”

The firm added in a statement: “Milberg L.L.P. apologizes to all judges, lawyers, clients, and class members, who deserve full and complete adherence to all legal and ethical norms.”

Portfolio also reports that the Milberg firm is intent on obtaining a deferred prosecution agreement: “If the firm pleaded guilty to a federal criminal offense, it is highly unlikely that a judge would approve the law firm to serve as lead counsel for the plaintiff in a class action.” More on the firm’s renaming: Lat. And Carter Wood at NAM notes the silly encomia with which Weiss’s lawyer is still attempting to gild his crooked client.

N.M. high court to review insurance-installment class settlement

New Mexico in recent years has been the scene of a little cottage industry in class-action settlements over insurance companies’ allegedly inadequate disclosure of charges on installment payments. Settlements often involve pledges to inform consumers more fully, modest coupons, and impressively large legal fees to the circle of law firms that file the cases. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, nearly every large insurer selling life and disability coverage has been hit with a New Mexico class action in the past decade. Now, for the first time, the state high court is set to review one such settlement, in a case against First Colony/Genworth. The “settlements have not been free of controversy, with even some policyholder-plaintiffs describing the lawsuits as frivolous and the attorney fees as excessive”; cumulatively they have brought the class counsel more than $41 million in fees. (Thomas J. Cole, “New Mexico’s Supreme Court to Review Award of $6.5 Million in Attorney Fees in Suits Against Insurer”, Albuquerque Journal, Feb. 14 courtesy NM Legal Reform; earlier).

Blind item

Eugene Anderson, of Anderson Kill & Olick, on the Business Week website:

Personal experience has forged my attitude about class actions. Forty years ago, I represented a financier claimant in a lawsuit against a major financial scam operation. Our financier’s case was consolidated with a class action against the same scam. I cooperated with the class action lawyers and thought that we were brothers. Their part of the arrangement was that the class action lawyers would keep all the case files. After several years of litigation, I learned that the class action lawyers had settled their case with the defense lawyer. (I still suspect that there was a symbiotic relationship there.)

All discovery files, documents, etc., had been returned to the defendant. These included my firm’s detailed notes regarding the documents and somewhat less detailed notes about witnesses. I never suspected that the defendant would ask for the files, and was completely confounded when I learned that the class action lawyers had agreed.

At the next hearing the judge was furious at me and so was my client. Eventually my client settled for peanuts. My firm got the crumbs on the floor.

Forty years later, I am a happy lawyer, and the class action attorney is living at government expense in a low-security Federal prison. Somehow I can’t help but believe our disparate attitudes toward class actions account for the differences in our respective epilogues.