11. See Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., 658 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2011) (holding that, in the absence of an express provision in the settlement agreement to the contrary, unclaimed funds should be distributed pro rata to class members who participated in the settlement as opposed to being given to charity as a cy pres distribution).
12. See In re Lupron Mkt'g. & Sales Practices Litig., 677 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (approving settlement that included cy pres award after adopting a "reasonable approximation test" as to whether cy pres distributions reasonably approximate the interests of the class members).
13. See All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants, 645 F.3d 329 (5th Cir. 2011) (reversed the award of unclaimed settlement funds in an antitrust class action because the district court had failed to follow state law governing fund distribution—the Texas Unclaimed Property Act—which required unclaimed class action funds to escheat to the state of Texas); Nachshin v. AOL, 663 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (reversed approval of a settlement, remanded for reconsideration and directed the district court to consider escheating the funds to the U.S. Treasury if a suitable cy pres beneficiary could not be located).
14. SEC v. Bear Stearns, 626 F. Supp. 2d 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
15. In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig., 654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011).
16. Kaufman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs., 283 F.R.D. 404 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (requiring notice to be reissued instead of rejecting settlement in its entirety where notice was inadequate).
17. Hecht v. United Collection Bureau, 691 F.3d 218 (2d Cir. Aug. 17, 2012).
18. Compare Azizian v. Federated Dept. Stores, 499 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that the "costs on appeal" that may be included in an appeal bond under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 7 include attorneys' fees permitted by the applicable fee shifting statute), Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, No. 09 CV 10035(HB), 2011 WL 5873383 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2011) (holding that district courts in the Second Circuit may include attorneys' fees in an appeal bond when authorized by the substantive statute but not merely because the court deems the appeal frivolous), with Cobell v. Salazar, 816 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2011) (noting that, in the D.C. Circuit, an appeal bond is limited to the costs taxable pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39).
19. Fed. R. App. P. 38.
Subscribe to New York Law Journal
