From Northern California Record:
Ian Adams, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based R Street Institute, told the Northern California Record that the judge drove the cost of the settlement higher.
“This is another instance in which a court has seen fit to drive the cost of settlement upward to satisfy its sense of justice against the wishes of the plaintiffs,” Adams said. “While the court has an obligation to ensure that members of a class are adequately represented and is likely correct in its analysis of the previous settlement’s problematic distribution, the adequacy of the sum of the settlement, when not clearly deficient, is better left to the parties in interest. A mere 14 percent increase simply does not amount to a significant enough deviation from reasonability to warrant intervention. Hopefully, this time around, Judge Tigar will approve the settlement.”
