APPEALS COURT REJECTS 'FREELANCE' SETTLEMENT
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today:http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
“[T]he district court abused its discretion in certifying the class and approving the Settlement, because the named plaintiffs failed to adequately represent the interests of all class members.... We therefore vacate the district court’s order certifying the class and approving the Settlement, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The full 52-page opinion is at http://muchnick.net/2ndcircuitruling.pdf.
Objectors' attorney Charles Chalmers:
The Court has issued a detailed decision, with thoughtful opinions by the majority and the dissent. My clients will need time to consider it, as the matter will now proceed to a new stage. My clients are of course gratified that the Court accepted their central adequacy of representation objection, which they tried repeatedly to make clear in the district court. They look forward to a revised resolution that insures protection for the 99% of freelance articles involved in the action.
“[T]he district court abused its discretion in certifying the class and approving the Settlement, because the named plaintiffs failed to adequately represent the interests of all class members.... We therefore vacate the district court’s order certifying the class and approving the Settlement, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
The full 52-page opinion is at http://muchnick.net/2ndcircuitruling.pdf.
Objectors' attorney Charles Chalmers:
The Court has issued a detailed decision, with thoughtful opinions by the majority and the dissent. My clients will need time to consider it, as the matter will now proceed to a new stage. My clients are of course gratified that the Court accepted their central adequacy of representation objection, which they tried repeatedly to make clear in the district court. They look forward to a revised resolution that insures protection for the 99% of freelance articles involved in the action.
posted by Irv Muchnick at 9:56 AM
4 Comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/business/media/court-says-publishers-settlement-was-unfair-to-writers.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness&seid=auto
story in the NYT
Wow. This is about more than the settlement. It implies that the limits on who can qualify for statutory damages is unconstitutional, doesn't it? I hope it does.
Oh, and mazel tov!
Mike, I haven't analyzed that aspect of the decision, but your thought is certainly an interesting one.
Post a Comment
<< Home