Judge OKs $77.5M in Legal Fees, Approves Equifax Data Breach Settlement
"I don't think anyone can credibly argue it doesn't provide substantial relief for the class now and in the future," U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. said of the settlement.
December 19, 2019 at 03:34 PM
6 minute read
The chief judge of the Northern District of Georgia on Thursday gave final approval to a $1.4 billion settlement agreement between Equifax and a class of 147 million consumers whose financial and personal data was exposed.
U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. also approved $77.5 million in legal fees and more than $1.4 million in expenses sought by the plaintiff consumers' class counsel for their role in negotiating what Thrash called "a historically significant data breach settlement."
"I don't think anyone can credibly argue it doesn't provide substantial relief for the class now and in the future," Thrash said at the end of a four-hour final approval hearing Thursday.
In granting class counsel's fee request in full, Thrash said attorneys put in more than 33,000 hours, defeated Equifax's motion to dismiss more than 400 claims that formed the basis of the multidistrict litigation and engaged in a "complex and highly adversarial" mediation. "In my opinion, plaintiffs' counsel took a serious risk in this litigation that could have terminated in Equifax's favor," he said.
The judge said the fee award is about 20% of $380 million set aside to provide consumers with extended credit monitoring, identity protection and repair services or reimburse them for expenses if their identities were stolen.
Thrash said attorney fee awards in data breach cases involving The Home Depot, Arby's, Target, and Anthem ranged from 27%-30%.
The judge also rejected arguments that substantial nonmonetary benefits included in the settlement couldn't be considered in calculating the fee award. "I think the result that has been achieved in this case has been exceptional and warrants approving the award," he said.
In approving the settlement, Thrash said that consumer anger about the Equifax data breach was unprecedented. "I've never seen anything like it in any other consumer data breach case I have handled," he said. "Nobody chooses to give information to Equifax. Equifax gets information from banks, merchants, landlords and employers. Then Equifax makes money selling that information back to banks, merchants and employers."
Thrash first issued his preliminary approval of the deal July 22. More than 400 cases filed across the nation following Equifax's September 2017 announcement of the unprecedented breach were consolidated in multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta.
Counsel for Equifax and for the class of 147 million consumers all have called the proposed settlement "unprecedented" in its scope and acknowledged in court papers that it was reached only after a series of contentious and difficult settlement negotiations.
The global settlement also resolves separate claims and enforcement actions by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and a multistate group of attorneys general from 48 of the nation's 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
Equifax is represented by a team of King & Spalding lawyers led by partners David Balser and Phyllis Sumner.
In asking Thrash to approve the settlement, Balser said the proposed settlement agreement "reflects the maximum Equifax is willing to do to resolve these claims."
The consumer class counsel team includes Kenneth Canfield of Atlanta's Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles; Norman Siegel of Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas City, Missouri; and Amy Keller of Dicello Levitt Gutzler in Chicago.
Canfield said the consumer response to the settlement notice has been "overwhelmingly positive" and "unusually high." He said there have been more than 130 million visits to the class website, and 15 million people have already filed claims to date. "I am unaware of any class action that has had this type of response," he said.
Thrash approved the deal despite an objection filed by Ted Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute in Washington, D.C. Frank targeted what he called an "excessive" legal fee request, suggesting it should be slashed to $16 million. Frank also argued the true value of the proposed settlement was $162 million.
In court papers, Equifax attorneys said nearly 65% of the total objections filed were submitted via a chatbot run by a third party claims filing service called Class Action.
Two state attorneys general—Massachusetts' Maura Healey and Indiana's Curtis Hill Jr.—also filed amicus briefs supporting objectors, calling on Thrash to reject the settlement unless it's modified to ensure that their separate state enforcement actions against Equifax won't be invalidated by the deal.
Thrash said their objections were invalid because the two states aren't class members and therefore have no standing to object.
Thrash said nothing in the settlement that prevents the Massachusetts and Indiana AGs from pursuing state claims or consumer enforcement actions in their respective state courts.
Under the terms of the consumer settlement, Equifax will pay $380.5 million earmarked for class benefits, fees, expenses and service awards, as well as notice and administration costs. Those benefits include up to 10 years of free credit monitoring or a one-time cash payment of up to $125 subject to a $31 million total cap and reimbursement of up to $20,000 for out-of-pocket losses fairly traceable to the data security breach.
Equifax also will pay up to an additional $125 million, if needed, to satisfy claims for consumers' out-of-pocket losses from efforts to defend against identity theft and $1 billion spent over five years to upgrade the company's data security and related technology.
Because there is no cap on the settlement, Equifax could pay as much as $2 billion more, if all 147.4 million class members sign up for 10 years of free credit monitoring, the class lawyers said. No settlement funds will revert to Equifax.
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
© 2024 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 AllHurricane Helene's Impact On Asheville, North Carolina: How Public and Private Attorneys Dealt With Closures, Safety and Sanitation
Second Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readBig Law Practice Leaders 'Bullish' That Second Trump Presidency Will Be Good for Business
3 minute readBig Law Lawyers Fan Out for Election Day Volunteering in Call Centers and Litigation
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 2The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
- 3Law Firm Accused of Barratry for Allegedly Soliciting Crash Victims
- 4Carlton Fields Downsizes in Move to New Atlanta Office
- 5Trump's Selection of Zeldin to Head EPA Draws Surprise, Little Hope of Avoiding Deregulation
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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