US Justice Dept. Says Cookie Class Action Settlement Not So Sweet
The U.S. Justice Department filed a statement of interest in a case over Lenny & Larry's cookies as part of its more aggressive approach in reviewing class action settlements.
February 22, 2019 at 12:37 PM
6 minute read
The U.S. Justice Department is taking another bite into the terms of a class action settlement, insisting that a deal over Lenny & Larry's cookies would leave class members with nothing but crumbs.
The Department of Justice—which announced a year ago that it would challenge more class action settlements under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005—filed a statement of interest Feb. 15 in a class action alleging that packaging mislabeled the protein content for all 11 flavors of Lenny & Larry's The Complete Cookie. The DOJ criticized the purported $3.5 million settlement, preliminarily approved Nov. 1, for giving $1.1 million in legal fees to plaintiffs attorneys, while class members received up to $50 in cash or $30 worth of cookies.
Another provision of the settlement left a bad taste in the government's mouth: Retailers such as General Nutrition Centers Inc. and The Vitamin Shoppe would receive potentially $3.15 million in free cookies should not enough class members make claims. That portion of the settlement, according to the DOJ's filing, was akin to a cy pres award.
“The proposed settlement is fatally lopsided,” wrote Kendrack Lewis, a trial attorney at the Consumer Protection Branch of the DOJ's civil division in Washington, D.C. “Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a less balanced settlement than one where most of the money goes to class counsel and administrative costs, while class members get far less than their counsel and the general public gets over $3 million in free cookies.”
Robert Wallan, of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's Los Angeles office, who is representing Lenny & Larry's, called the DOJ's filing “moot” because both sides already were re-crafting the settlement to address some of its concerns. He said an unusually high claims rate, and not the DOJ's involvement, prompted the changes.
“The claims rate ended up being very high on cash, but also very high on cookies, so the result is in order to get the cash amount to be approximately or in the range of what the settlement agreement provided for, the parties are working on essentially shifting cookies to cash,” he said.
Lead plaintiffs' attorney Edward Wallace of Wexler Wallace in Chicago did not respond to a request for comment. Nick Suciu of BMST Law Firm in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and Steve Wasserman of Wasserman Law Group in Tarzana, California, joined him on the case.
A final settlement hearing is set for March 19.
The DOJ's filing came one day after Attorney General Bill Barr's confirmation. Department of Justice spokeswoman Kelly Laco declined to comment.
Traditionally, the DOJ has rarely gotten involved in class action settlements but, last year, Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand suggested in a speech that the Justice Department would be more aggressive in reviewing their fairness of such deals. Soon afterward, government lawyers filed a statement of interest urging a federal judge in New Jersey to reject a settlement that would have given nearly $2 million in fees to plaintiffs' lawyers and vouchers to class members in a case alleging false pricing advertisements on the website Wines Til Sold Out. U.S. District Judge Renée Bumb of the District of New Jersey rejected the deal, but after the DOJ withdrew its objection.
Originally filed in 2017, the lawsuit against Lenny & Larry's, based in Panorama City, California, brought fraud claims on behalf of a nationwide class and subclasses in Illinois, Michigan and, later, Pennsylvania. Both sides reached a settlement after U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman of the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a large chunk of the case in 2017, and plaintiffs ended up limiting their case to an Illinois subclass of consumers.
The settlement, however, was for a nationwide class. It provided $1.85 million in cash, of which plaintiffs' lawyers would get up to $1.2 million in fees and expenses.
After subtracting administrative costs and incentive awards to named plaintiffs, that left $350,000 in cash for class members. Class members could make claims for cash or cookies: up to $50 cash or $30 in free cookies, if they had proof of purchase, and $10 in cash or $15 in cookies if they did not.
The claims deadline was Jan. 29. Ted Frank, a class action critic who argued against a cy pres award last fall in a case against Google before the U.S. Supreme Court, filed an objection to the Lenny & Larry's deal. He said he was “encouraged” by the DOJ's filing, which raised many of the same concerns he had in his Jan. 28 filing.
According to the DOJ's filing, only 10 percent of the 90,566 claimants wanted cookies over cash, which meant class members would each end up getting less money while most of the cookies would end up as free giveaways to retailers.
“This cookie giveaway does not benefit class members at all; instead, it is effectively a promotional opportunity for Lenny & Larry's and their longstanding health food retailers to draw in consumers with free samples,” he wrote. “Rather than convey the bulk of its benefit to class members, the proposed settlement appears to be a marketing campaign to distribute defendant's cookies to the public.”
Further, the plaintiffs' fee request is “outlandish,” Lewis wrote, and should be somewhere between $228,000 and $463,000.
Wallan predicted that the fee request would change after the parties redraft the settlement. He also criticized the DOJ's “gross misconstruction of the term of cy pres,” which are leftover funds that normally go to charities.
He expected to file the new settlement “within days.”
“We're still going to give away a lot of cookies, but it will be cookie giveaway to people who make claims,” he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSkadden and Steptoe, Defending Amex GBT, Blasts Biden DOJ's Antitrust Lawsuit Over Merger Proposal
4 minute readTrial Court Had No Authority to Reopen Voir Dire After Jury Impaneled in Civil Case, State Appellate Court Rules
Read the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Amid the Tragedy of the L.A. Fires, a Lesson on the Value of Good Neighbors
- 2Democracy in Focus: New York State Court of Appeals Year in Review
- 3In Vape Case, A Debate Over Forum Shopping
- 4SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief Returns to Debevoise
- 5Brownstein Adds Former Interior Secretary, Offering 'Strategic Counsel' During New Trump Term
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250