Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 23 AUGUST 2016

Protecting The Class: Why 2nd Circ. Nixed A $7B Settlement

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader
Contributor
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is a global law firm trusted by clients to deliver on complex, high-stakes...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hogan Lovells Cadwalader

In a June 30, 2016, opinion strongly focusing on whether benefits to class members were adequate, the Second Circuit rejected a $7.25 billion settlement of antitrust claims brought by millions of...

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

In a June 30, 2016, opinion strongly focusing on whether benefits to class members were adequate, the Second Circuit rejected a $7.25 billion settlement of antitrust claims brought by millions of merchants against Visa, MasterCard and various banks over the alleged artificial inflation of certain credit card transaction fees. The settlement was the largest all-cash antitrust settlement in U.S. history. The court found that the settlement was fundamentally flawed because two classes of merchants with divergent interests had been represented in negotiations by the same lawyers. The conflict "sapped class counsel of the incentive to zealously represent the latter" class, resulting in inadequate representation in violation of both Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4) and the due process clause. See In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merch. Disc. Antitrust Litig., No. 12-4671-CV, (2d Cir. June 30, 2016) (the "Payment Card litigation").

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from