The Ninth Circuit has handed down two opinions in recent weeks addressing class action settlements.
In Radcliffe v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2013; mod. May 2, 2013), the court reversed final approval because some of the class representatives' incentive awards were made conditional upon their support of the settlement, which undermined their adequacy (and that of their counsel).
In In re: HP Inkjet Printer Litigation, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. May 15, 2013), the court reversed final approval and the attorneys' fees award, finding that the award did not comport with the provisions of CAFA governing attorneys' fees in "coupon" settlement cases. Judge Berzon dissented.
On a related note, on February 26, 2013, the Court denied en banc rehearing of the panel opinion in Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2012). This is the case in which the court approved a class action settlement with a significant cy pres component. The order denying rehearing, and a strenuously-worded dissent by six judges, were both published: Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 709 F.3d 791 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2013).
My original post on the Facebook case is here.