Equifax Judge Says 'Serial Objector' Ted Frank Put Out Misleading Information About Settlement
Chief District Judge Thomas Thrash of Georgia's Northern District accused Frank of disseminating "false and misleading information" about the terms of the Equifax consumer class action settlement. Frank says he intends to appeal the settlement order.
January 15, 2020 at 07:04 PM
6 minute read
The presiding judge in the Equifax data breach multidistrict litigation this week issued a harsh critique of frequent class action critic Theodore Frank, branding him a "serial objector" who "disseminated false and misleading information."
In a 122-page order finalizing the Atlanta-based credit reporting agency's $1.4 billion settlement with 147 million consumers over its 2017 data breach, Chief Judge Thomas Thrash of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta said Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, a nonprofit in Washington D.C., "is in the business of objecting to class action settlements." The judge added Frank's objections in the Equifax case are similar to those he made—and that were rejected—in a data breach case involving the Target Corp.
Thrash said in the Jan. 13 order that, in encouraging others to object to the Equifax settlement, Frank also used a "chat-bot" created by Class Action Inc., "notwithstanding that it contained false and misleading information about the settlement."
Class Action Inc. is a claims aggregator that created a website encouraging people to object based on erroneous information about the proposed settlement, the judge said in his order.
Frank said he has "no idea what the judge thinks I said that was false and misleading."
He also said he has "no affiliation" with Class Action Inc. and that "They asked for my help, and I told them their checkbox objection process was unlikely to have any effect, that class counsel would try to strike the objections and that they should forgo working on objections until they could plan ahead far enough in advance to work effectively with an attorney."
In his order, Thrash rejected Frank's characterization of the settlement, finding that the lawyer improperly and dramatically understated its monetary value and disregarded the nonmonetary benefits. Thrash also rejected what he said was the "implication" of some objectors, including Frank, that the recovery from Equifax was inadequate in relations to a possible award at trial.
In a formal objection to the settlement that Frank filed in November, he labeled as "completely fictional" a $380.5 million cash fund to provide consumers with extended credit monitoring, identity protection and repair services, or reimburse them for expenses if their identities were stolen. Frank also contended that counsel representing the consumer class "didn't do any actual litigating in this case" and should be awarded no more than $16.2 million for a settlement he claimed was actually worth no more than $162 million.
"The settlement is at the high end of the range of likely recoveries," Thrash wrote. "Many of the specific benefits of the settlement likely would not be attainable at trial," including the eligibility of all 147 million class members for extended credit monitoring.
The judge also rejected Frank's claim that an additional $70.5 million included in the settlement fund at the request of federal and state regulators did not result from class counsel's efforts.
"This argument fails as a factual matter because it assigns no credit to class counsel's efforts and their agreement to integrate the additional money into the settlement they negotiated," Thrash held. "While regulators may have been the initial catalyst for the extra funds, the money would not have been added to the settlement fund but for class counsel's efforts."
Thrash also disagreed with Frank's attempts to minimize the work of class counsel and his claim that there was little risk in pursuing consumer claims against Equifax. "To the contrary, class counsel faced extraordinary risk, which the objectors unreasonably and erroneously discount," Thrash said.
Frank said he didn't know what Thrash meant in calling him a serial objector or whether it's even a bad thing.
"It's regrettable and highly irregular that the court makes insults that are both untrue and irrelevant" to the settlement," he said.
"My nonprofit and its attorneys have successfully represented class members objecting to abusive class action settlements and certifications for over 10 years," Frank continued. "The court made much of the fact that some of our objections were ultimately unsuccessful, but I'm unaware of any precedent requiring an objector to have a 100% successful track record."
Frank also said that he intends to appeal the settlement's approval.
"I'm happy to let the Eleventh Circuit decide whether we were right on the legal question, and I'm confident that the district court's intemperate language won't poison the well for that appeal," he added.
Frank's objection contended that residents of each state or other jurisdiction that could make separate claims against Equifax under their consumer protection statutes should have been represented by separate counsel.
But Thrash said in his order that Frank's objections, if acted on, "could disadvantage the entire class" and that adopting Frank's proposal would have required at least 34 separate teams of lawyers.
"The selection and appointment process alone would be incredibly time consuming and the duplication of effort involved in ensuring each legal team was adequately versed in the law and facts to assess the relative worth of their clients' claims would be staggering," the judge said.
"Ironically, the same objectors criticize the requested attorneys' fees in this case on the basis that class counsel's hours are inflated because too many lawyers worked on it," Thrash wrote.
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 AllAkerman Opens Charlotte Office With Focus on Renewable Energy, Data Center Practices
4 minute readWoman's Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
Supreme Court of Georgia Accepts 2 Petitions for Voluntary Discipline With 2-Year Suspension, 1 Voluntary Surrender of License
Trending Stories
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