POPULARITY
19 episodes with Ted Frank
2 episodes with Ted Frank
2 episodes with Ted Frank
2 episodes with Ted Frank
Dan and Pat are joined by Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute regarding his recent oral argument before the Seventh Circuit.
Indiana Congressman Marlin Stutzman discusses the implications of the current Continuing Resolution, the potential for a government shutdown, and the strategies Republicans may employ to navigate the political landscape. Stutzman shares insights on spending cuts, MAGA policies, and the role of various government agencies, shedding light on the broader impact these decisions have on the American people. Aaron Withe, CEO of the Freedom Foundation, unveils the Teacher Freedom Alliance, a new initiative designed to counter the influence of traditional teachers' unions and promote educational values that prepare students for the workforce. Later, Ted Frank, co-founder of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, sheds light on the troubling trends linked to the DEI movement and its impact on societal attitudes towards Jewish Americans. Frank discusses significant legal actions taken against organizations that have engaged in disruptive protests, particularly those targeting pro-Israel sentiments. Finally, Senator Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee discusses the current political landscape, the implications of a potential government shutdown, and the importance of accountability within federal agencies. Senator Blackburn shares insights on the American people's expectations for government spending, border security, and the need for strong leadership. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
A heart transplant two weeks ago barely slowed down renowned free-market public interest lawyer Ted Frank. We discussed what makes him tick shortly before he received his new ticker. The post “Heart of an Advocate” appeared first on ColemanNation.
Wednesday September 4, 2024 Ted Frank on Challenging Class Action Abuse
This week brings us the biggest oral argument of the term: Trump v. Anderson, which will decide whether states can disqualify President Trump from the ballot. Your hosts recap the complicated legal issues and explore oral arguments. Zack and GianCarlo also discuss the two opinions released this week, which involve whistleblower protections and suing the government for false credit reporting. Zack interviews legendary class action lawyer Ted Frank who talks about his career and his now-famous debunking of part of Justice Jackson's opinion in the affirmative action cases. Lastly, Zack takes the trivia hot-seat to answer questions about Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase.Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @scotus101 and @tzsmith. And please send questions, comments, or ideas for future episodes to scotus101@heritage.org.Don't forget to leave a 5-star rating.Stay caffeinated and opinionated with a SCOTUS 101 mug. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On this episode of Future of Freedom, host Scot Bertram is joined by two guests with opposing viewpoints about whether conservatives should embrace the current class action system. First on the show is Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise and Professor of Law at Vanderbilt Law School. Later, we hear from Ted Frank, director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. You can find Brian on X, formerly Twitter, at @BTFitzPat and Ted at @TedFrank. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/future-of-freedom/support
This week, Ted Frank joins the podcast. Frank is the director of litigation at the conservative public-interest law firm he founded, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, and has argued and won cases in front of the Supreme Court as well as several federal courts of appeals. Stepman and Frank talk through the legal and public […]
This week, Ted Frank joins the podcast. Frank is the director of litigation at the conservative public-interest law firm he founded, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute, and has argued and won cases in front of the Supreme Court as well as several federal courts of appeals.Stepman and Frank talk through the legal and public opinion contours of the Jordan Neely case in New York, and set it in context of the rising crime and disorder in American cities and the ideological commitment against enforcing the law in many DAs' offices. They also discuss the recent series of stories on the ethics of the Supreme Court and how they're being used to delegitimize the judicial branch and pave the way for court packing and even refusing to obey court decisions.--High Noon is an intellectual download featuring conversations that make possible a free society. The podcast features interesting thinkers from all parts of the political spectrum to discuss the most controversial subjects of the day in a way that hopes to advance our common American future.Hosted by Inez Stepman of Independent Women's Forum.You can listen to the latest High Noon episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community at iwf.org/connect. Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most. Independent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day. Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/IWF06. Follow IWF on social media: - on Twitter- on Facebook- on Instagram #IWF #HighNoonPodcast #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Cy pres is the practice of awarding class-action settlement funds to third-party organizations when distribution of settlement funds directly to class members is considered impractical. Champions of cy pres awards – which can amount to tens of millions of dollars – claim that the practice directly aids the causes in question. They also note its convenience and the importance of deterrence. Cy pres critics contend that such awards lead to conflicts of interest, the failure of class attorneys to prioritize class recovery, and First Amendment concerns over the compelled support of political beneficiaries. By a 6-5 vote, the Eighth Circuit recently declined en banc review of an opinion affirming approval of a Monsanto settlement that paid $16 million to cy pres while leaving 98% of the class uncompensated. The Second Circuit affirmed approval of a settlement with Navient that paid the class of student debtors nothing with all settlement proceeds going to a few nonprofits affiliated with the teachers' union funding the class action. Both courts rejected objectors' First Amendment and Rule 23 arguments, and both cases are now the subject of cert petitions.Ted Frank, who argued Frank v. Gaos and is counsel of record in St. John v. Jones and Yeatman v. Hyland, and Brian Fitzpatrick, author of The Conservative Case for Class Actions, will debate the pros, cons, and legality of cy pres and discuss possible Supreme Court review.Featuring:--Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation & Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute--Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law School
Join us for a conversation about class action lawsuit abuse with Ted Frank of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. Cohosted by Josiah Neeley of the R Street Institute and Doug McCullough.
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System on June 21, 2021. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined in full.In this case, a group of Goldman shareholders sought to certify a class action suit against Goldman arguing that they had detrimentally relied on Goldman's alleged misrepresentations about conflict management, which had resulted in inflation maintenance and subsequent shareholder loss. In arguing for class certification, the plaintiffs relied on the Supreme Court's 1988 Basic Inc. v. Levinson decision allowing plaintiffs to prove reliance based on evidence common to the class. Goldman argued against certification and against the Basic presumption by presenting evidence showing the alleged misrepresentations had not affected stock prices.On its second attempt, the District Court certified a class and the Second Circuit affirmed. In its decision, the Supreme Court remanded to the Second Circuit to consider the generic nature of the alleged misrepresentations even though that evidence might get to materiality not usually considered at the initial certification stage under Rule 23. The Court also clarified the Basic presumption holding that a defendant does bear the burden of persuasion to rebut the presumption of reliance allowed to class action plaintiffs. Joining us to discuss is Mr. Ted Frank, a class action litigator and the Director of the Center for Class Action Fairness at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute. Featuring:-- Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
President Biden tweeted out a Stalin-esque ultimatum after the CDC rescinded most COVID guidelines for vaccinated people, and Glenn and Stu have some choice words. Glenn previews his newest podcast with former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley. The mayor of Washington, D.C., has banned dancing at weddings due to COVID, but one bride is suing. Glenn speaks with her attorney, Theodore Frank. Bill O’Reilly joins for another news power hour and talks the gas shortage and pipeline hack, the Left’s hatred of Andrew Yang’s support for Israel, inflation, and mask mandates. BlazeTV’s Dave Rubin comes into the studio to discuss what COVID fear has done to California, becoming a believer, and the true history of Israel and Palestine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Glenn previews his newest podcast with former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, where she explains why China keeps her up at night. The mayor of Washington, D.C., has banned dancing at weddings due to COVID, but one bride is suing. Glenn speaks with her attorney, Theodore Frank. BlazeTV’s Dave Rubin comes into the studio to discuss what COVID fear has done to California, becoming a believer, and the true history of Israel and Palestine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On March 29, 2021 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System. The questions before the court were whether, first, a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality; and, second, whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.Ted Frank, Director at the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness, joins us today to discuss this case's oral argument.
ABA Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g) holds it misconduct for an attorney to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination” in connection with the practice of law. Scholars have criticized the Rule as chilling speech on matters of public concern and unlawful viewpoint discrimination; several state attorneys general concluded the rule is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania adopted a modified version of Rule 8.4(g), including “words or conduct” within its ambit. In Greenberg v. Haggerty (E.D. Pa. 2020), an attorney represented by the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute obtained a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania’s enforcement of the rule. Pennsylvania officials have appealed to the Third Circuit. HLLI’s Ted Frank will discuss Rule 8.4(g) and its consequences for speech, the Greenberg decision and appeal, and the prospects for future litigation. Featuring: -- Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and the Center for Class Action Fairness.
Episode 45. Master the Hollywood Secrets of Presentation with Ted Frank Why do most presentations suck? How can movie storytelling techniques help you get to the heart of your audiences? What is story-staging, and how can you use that to make unforgettable presentations? Welcome to The Storypowers Podcast, the show about the power of stories, the people who tell them and why you should be doing it too. I'm your host, keynote speaker and storytelling coach, Francisco Mahfuz. My guest today is Ted Frank. In decades of working in corporations, he got tired of seeing great ideas go to waste and people lose their sense of purpose because they couldn't present successfully. Now Ted runs his own strategic story consulting firm, teaching people movie-storytelling techniques to get to the heart of their audiences. The companies he works with make cars (Porsche, Fiat Chrysler) they make toilet paper (Georgia-Pacific), and they make shows about cars and toilet paper (Netflix). You can find him at tedfrank.net. If you like the show, please leave us a rating on Apple podcasts, share it and SUBSCRIBE! The support is very much appreciated. And please send me your comments on what you'd like to hear on future episodes. You can connect with me on LinkedIn, where I post daily (or as close to that as real life will let me), and on storypowers.com. You can also check out my book "Bare: A Guide to Brutally Honest Public Speaking" on Amazon.
Class action expert Ted Frank joins to discuss a Ninth Circuit case where the court didn’t think giving class members crummy coupons warranted almost $15 million in attorneys fees. IJ Senior Attorney Jeff Rowes then gets some religion about land use and how the Alabama Constitution protects Buddhists in starting a meditation center. iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/short-circuit/id309062019 Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/podcast/1DFCqDbZTI7kIws11kEhed/overview Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/institute-for-justice/short-circuit Google: https://play.google.com/music/listen?u=0#/ps/Iz26kyzdcpodkfm5cpz7rlvf76a Newsletter: ij.org/about-us/shortcircuit/ Want to email us? shortcircuit@ij.org Chambers v. Whirlpool Corp., https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/11/10/16-56666.pdf Thai Meditation Association of Alabama v. City of Mobile, https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201912418.pdf Ted Frank, https://hlli.org/ted-frank/ Jeff Rowes, https://ij.org/staff/jrowes/ Anthony Sanders, https://ij.org/staff/asanders/
What happens when a Subway foot-long sandwich is only 11 inches long? There’s a class action lawsuit for that. In recent years, high-profile class action settlements have been criticized for delivering little to no monetary relief to plaintiffs — instead, providing coupons, injunctive relief or “cy pres” relief in which the defendant makes charitable donations — while making large fee awards to attorneys. On the latest episode of the ABA Banking Journal Podcast — sponsored by Reich and Tang Deposit Solutions — class action expert Ted Frank discusses recent trends in class litigation. As founder of the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and its Center for Class Action Fairness, Frank discusses his efforts to object to settlements that deliver insufficiently for consumers — and how these efforts have helped to reduce frivolous lawsuits by making it harder for plaintiffs attorneys to get big fee awards. He also discusses the value of arbitration for consumers compared to class actions, as well as the role of shareholder strike suits in mergers and acquisitions.
Is rational basis review the appropriate approach consistent with constitutional text, history, and good public policy, or is it an abdication of judicial responsibility?Advocates for greater judicial engagement argue that courts have a constitutional obligation to apply meaningful judicial review to infringement of unenumerated “nonfundamental” rights. Judicial abdication of that responsibility, they argue, permits special interests to interfere with competition, innovation, and economic liberty.Defenders of rational basis review maintain that judges are ill-equipped to second-guess the policy judgments of elected lawmakers, and that absent a clear violation of a constitutional protection, such determinations are better left to that branch of government subject to democratic accountability.Ted Frank of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Clark Neily of The Cato Institute will debate the merits of judicial engagement and rational basis review. Featuring: -- Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamiliton Lincoln Law Institute-- Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute-- Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Is rational basis review the appropriate approach consistent with constitutional text, history, and good public policy, or is it an abdication of judicial responsibility?Advocates for greater judicial engagement argue that courts have a constitutional obligation to apply meaningful judicial review to infringement of unenumerated “nonfundamental” rights. Judicial abdication of that responsibility, they argue, permits special interests to interfere with competition, innovation, and economic liberty.Defenders of rational basis review maintain that judges are ill-equipped to second-guess the policy judgments of elected lawmakers, and that absent a clear violation of a constitutional protection, such determinations are better left to that branch of government subject to democratic accountability.Ted Frank of Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute and Clark Neily of The Cato Institute will debate the merits of judicial engagement and rational basis review. Featuring: -- Ted Frank, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Hamiliton Lincoln Law Institute-- Clark Neily, Vice President for Criminal Justice, Cato Institute-- Moderator: Hon. Paul B. Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School and Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness debate Professor Fitzpatrick’s provocative new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press).
Professor Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt Law School and Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness debate Professor Fitzpatrick’s provocative new book, The Conservative Case for Class Actions (University of Chicago Press).
This Liberty Law Talk is with Ted Frank on reforming class action litigation and, in particular, the settlements plaintiffs receive under the current system. Frank, the founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness, argues that class-action suits contribute little to plaintiffs and substantially benefit only their lawyers. Monitoring and agency problems reign because most […]
In Episode 1, we heard from a surprising proponent of class action lawsuits. Now we hear from the other side, as prominent (and enigmatic) public interest objector Ted Frank (https://hlli.org/ted-frank/) joins the show. Proving why the New York Times called him the “leading critic of abusing class-action settlements” in the country, Ted pulls no punches. He argues that many settlements are rigged in favor of attorneys and explains why he thinks plaintiff’s lawyers could be targeted with antitrust lawsuits or (gasp) even malpractice class actions in the future. Ted also talks about how he chooses his cases, why he is rarely worried about what happens in the trial courts, and why he thinks one of his objections (maybe even Equifax) might soon end up in the Supreme Court. And for dessert, Jay plays a part of his firm’s new rap song -- https://youtu.be/paPmaUUhJ8I -- which gives a shout out to Ted.
The Class Action Fairness Act permits "any defendant" to remove a class action to federal court. May a third-party defendant brought into a suit through a counterclaim by the original defendant remove a class action to federal court? In Home Depot v. Jackson, the Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Thomas, held that "any defendant" does not include third-party defendants in either the Class Action Fairness Act or in other removals under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Justice Alito's dissent questioned that statutory interpretation. Ted Frank will join us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring:Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
The Class Action Fairness Act permits "any defendant" to remove a class action to federal court. May a third-party defendant brought into a suit through a counterclaim by the original defendant remove a class action to federal court? In Home Depot v. Jackson, the Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Thomas, held that "any defendant" does not include third-party defendants in either the Class Action Fairness Act or in other removals under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Justice Alito's dissent questioned that statutory interpretation. Ted Frank will join us to discuss this decision and its implications. Featuring:Ted Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court heard Frank v. Gaos, stemming from a class action suit brought against Google for allegedly leaking, in violation of privacy laws, information about their search terms to third parties by including search terms in the referrer header. Essentially, the plaintiffs allege that Google disseminated private information of users in violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court approved a cy pres, or “near as possible award”, that directs the application of the property (or a portion of the property) to a charitable purpose that reasonably approximates the designated purpose rather than a few cents or dollars to class members.The petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court, led by Theodore Frank, included all those who believe the district court’s decision to award a cy pres settlement creates an unlawful conflict of interest between attorneys, who were compensated monetarily, and class members, who were not. Secondly, they allege that it is inappropriate that the settlement fund was given to institutions that regularly council in the matter at hand (i.e. privacy cases). The respondents include members from both parties (plaintiffs and defendants) who support the cy pres award.The Supreme Court decided to vacate and remand to the 9th Circuit with direction to investigate the issue of standing. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, claiming that the settlement should be reversed, because “the class members here received no settlement fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims.”Ted Frank will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, next steps, and other like cases including another pending cy pres cert petition, Perryman v Romero.Featuring: Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court heard Frank v. Gaos, stemming from a class action suit brought against Google for allegedly leaking, in violation of privacy laws, information about their search terms to third parties by including search terms in the referrer header. Essentially, the plaintiffs allege that Google disseminated private information of users in violation of the Stored Communications Act. The district court approved a cy pres, or “near as possible award”, that directs the application of the property (or a portion of the property) to a charitable purpose that reasonably approximates the designated purpose rather than a few cents or dollars to class members.The petitioners in the case before the Supreme Court, led by Theodore Frank, included all those who believe the district court’s decision to award a cy pres settlement creates an unlawful conflict of interest between attorneys, who were compensated monetarily, and class members, who were not. Secondly, they allege that it is inappropriate that the settlement fund was given to institutions that regularly council in the matter at hand (i.e. privacy cases). The respondents include members from both parties (plaintiffs and defendants) who support the cy pres award.The Supreme Court decided to vacate and remand to the 9th Circuit with direction to investigate the issue of standing. Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter, claiming that the settlement should be reversed, because “the class members here received no settlement fund, no meaningful injunctive relief, and no other benefit whatsoever in exchange for the settlement of their claims.”Ted Frank will discuss the Supreme Court’s decision, next steps, and other like cases including another pending cy pres cert petition, Perryman v Romero.Featuring: Theodore "Ted" Frank, Director of Litigation and Senior Attorney, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
The case of Frank v. Gaos presents the question of whether and in what circumstances courts can approve class action settlements that send all or part of the settlement to charity rather than to class members. The payments to charity are known as “cy pres” payments—French for “next best.” The idea is that, if, for some reason, it is not practical to send the money to class members—usually because the money is not sufficient to send more than a few cents or dollars to each class member—the next best thing is to send it to a charity that can serve class members indirectly.Ted Frank runs an organization that objects to class action settlements he deems problematic. He objected to a settlement in a privacy lawsuit against Google on the ground that all the money that did not go to attorneys’ fees and other transaction costs (some several million dollars) was going to charity. Class members got nothing besides changes to Google’s privacy disclosures. Frank says that cy pres should never be counted when the court assesses whether a settlement is fair. But, if it is counted, courts should always try to distribute money to class members before ever resorting to cy pres. Mr. Frank also takes issues with the charities that received the money in the Google case.The class action lawyers and Google say cy pres has been used for decades and there is nothing wrong with it when it is impractical to distribute the money (the class here comprises 140 million people); the charity will indirectly serve the class’s interests, and there is no conflict of interest on the part of the judge or lawyers in selecting the charities. The issues of Frank v. Gaos as related in oral arguments are further discussed in this teleforum.Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
What is the purpose of class actions? To provide compensation to class members? Or to provide compensation for attorneys? The Seventh Circuit has taken a skeptical view of settlements that provide fees for counsel but no meaningful benefit for the class. But there is a circuit split on the question, with the Ninth Circuit approving settlements that maximize attorney fees at the expense of the class, while funneling the class’s compensation to organizations already supported by defendant contributions.The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos to consider whether and in what circumstances cy pres is permitted in class action settlements. Class counsel brought a putative class action against Google alleging Stored Communications Act violations entitling over 100 million class members to $1000/violation statutory damages. Before a motion to dismiss could be decided, the parties settled. Class counsel would receive over $2.1 million (over $1000/hour for every lawyer who worked on the case) and the class would receive nothing. The parties justified this settlement because of a provision providing for cy pres donations: about $5 million to five organizations that would use the money on Internet-related issues. At the fairness hearing, class member Ted Frank objected that the settlement unfairly benefited class counsel at the expense of the class, and objected that the cy pres money was going to organizations affiliated with Google or class counsel, such as Chicago-Kent Law School, the alma mater of one of the attorneys. The district court stated the cy pres did not pass the “smell test,” but approved the settlement under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.Ted Frank, litigation director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that a settlement where attorneys receive millions and the class receives nothing by definition fails the Rule 23(e) requirement that settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A bright line rule on “fairness” requiring that attorney fees be proportional to the direct recovery to the class would provide guidance to lower courts, align counsels’ incentives with the class they represent, and reduce the incentive to bring low-value class actions that function as a mechanism to extract fees.The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the case. Alida Kass, president and chief counsel, will discuss the questions at issue in Frank v. Gaos. The argument is scheduled for October 31.Featuring: Alida Kass, President and Chief Counsel, New Jersey Civil Justice Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
The case of Frank v. Gaos presents the question of whether and in what circumstances courts can approve class action settlements that send all or part of the settlement to charity rather than to class members. The payments to charity are known as “cy pres” payments—French for “next best.” The idea is that, if, for some reason, it is not practical to send the money to class members—usually because the money is not sufficient to send more than a few cents or dollars to each class member—the next best thing is to send it to a charity that can serve class members indirectly.Ted Frank runs an organization that objects to class action settlements he deems problematic. He objected to a settlement in a privacy lawsuit against Google on the ground that all the money that did not go to attorneys’ fees and other transaction costs (some several million dollars) was going to charity. Class members got nothing besides changes to Google’s privacy disclosures. Frank says that cy pres should never be counted when the court assesses whether a settlement is fair. But, if it is counted, courts should always try to distribute money to class members before ever resorting to cy pres. Mr. Frank also takes issues with the charities that received the money in the Google case.The class action lawyers and Google say cy pres has been used for decades and there is nothing wrong with it when it is impractical to distribute the money (the class here comprises 140 million people); the charity will indirectly serve the class’s interests, and there is no conflict of interest on the part of the judge or lawyers in selecting the charities. The issues of Frank v. Gaos as related in oral arguments are further discussed in this teleforum.Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
What is the purpose of class actions? To provide compensation to class members? Or to provide compensation for attorneys? The Seventh Circuit has taken a skeptical view of settlements that provide fees for counsel but no meaningful benefit for the class. But there is a circuit split on the question, with the Ninth Circuit approving settlements that maximize attorney fees at the expense of the class, while funneling the class’s compensation to organizations already supported by defendant contributions.The U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos to consider whether and in what circumstances cy pres is permitted in class action settlements. Class counsel brought a putative class action against Google alleging Stored Communications Act violations entitling over 100 million class members to $1000/violation statutory damages. Before a motion to dismiss could be decided, the parties settled. Class counsel would receive over $2.1 million (over $1000/hour for every lawyer who worked on the case) and the class would receive nothing. The parties justified this settlement because of a provision providing for cy pres donations: about $5 million to five organizations that would use the money on Internet-related issues. At the fairness hearing, class member Ted Frank objected that the settlement unfairly benefited class counsel at the expense of the class, and objected that the cy pres money was going to organizations affiliated with Google or class counsel, such as Chicago-Kent Law School, the alma mater of one of the attorneys. The district court stated the cy pres did not pass the “smell test,” but approved the settlement under Ninth Circuit precedent, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.Ted Frank, litigation director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, argues that a settlement where attorneys receive millions and the class receives nothing by definition fails the Rule 23(e) requirement that settlements be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” A bright line rule on “fairness” requiring that attorney fees be proportional to the direct recovery to the class would provide guidance to lower courts, align counsels’ incentives with the class they represent, and reduce the incentive to bring low-value class actions that function as a mechanism to extract fees.The New Jersey Civil Justice Institute filed an amicus brief in the case. Alida Kass, president and chief counsel, will discuss the questions at issue in Frank v. Gaos. The argument is scheduled for October 31.Featuring: Alida Kass, President and Chief Counsel, New Jersey Civil Justice Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute Center for Class Action Fairness discusses how class action lawsuits sometimes benefit only the lawyers bringing the suit, not the damaged consumers. Actions taken by the center have resulted in positive changes for consumers involved in class action lawsuits.
On April 30, the Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos, an appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision affirming a District Court cy pres class action settlement. The petitioner claims that because the class action members received no direct relief, the award does not support class certification and violates Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a settlement binding class members to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Ted Frank, petitioner in the case and member of the Federalist Society Litigation Practice Group, will join us to discuss this important case.Featuring:Theodore H. Frank, Director of Litigation, Competitive Enterprise Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
On April 30, the Supreme Court granted cert in Frank v. Gaos, an appeal of a Ninth Circuit decision affirming a District Court cy pres class action settlement. The petitioner claims that because the class action members received no direct relief, the award does not support class certification and violates Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a settlement binding class members to be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Ted Frank, petitioner in the case and member of the Federalist Society Litigation Practice Group, will join us to discuss this important case.Featuring:Theodore H. Frank, Director of Litigation, Competitive Enterprise Institute Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.
PowerPoints are a unique medium; they have the incredible ability to bore your audience to death. Bullet points, stats, and slides with a hundred words are an effective way of putting people into a deep sleep. But what if you could make your presentation thrilling? Is it possible to channel emotions into creating a powerful visual narrative that is not only relatable, but also exciting? Ted Frank, the author of Get to the Heart, is here to show you how movies hold the key to creating an impact in your presentations. Ted studied storytelling in Hollywood films and applied that structure to keep people’s attention and appeal to their emotions. The title, Get to the Heart, has two meanings; getting to the heart of your message, and getting to the heart of your audience. By creating tension, dynamic shifts, and authentic storytelling, Ted has strategies that every presenter and storyteller need. In This Show, You’ll Learn: Telling business stories that are relatable and real in your presentations The importance of creating tension with your stories and writing three key scenes to propel your audiences to action The three best ways to overcome anxiety and nervousness about your presentation Key Quotes “The exact things that make movie stories unique are the same things that are coveted in a corporate presentation; being simple, real and powerful.” - Ted Frank “Don't ask yourself what you think you should show up with. Ask what the people I'm talking to need to do with that information" - Ted Frank "They may try to absorb that data, but they've already been to three meetings today and their brains just can't take it in." - Ted Frank “Storytelling is more important than opposable thumbs. It's what brought us from cavemen to consumers.” - Park Howell "It doesn't matter the length of the story, the power is found in the structure." - Park Howell "When I try stuff, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. But what always fails is not trying. You have to find the courage to try." - Park Howell Mentioned in this episode Ted Frank Ted Frank Linkedin Get to the Heart Deadpool PromaxBDA Conference Groundhog Day Free E-book Romancing the Bean Hormel Business Story Strategist, Keynote Speaker, and Brand Raconteur Park Howell is a trusted brand story strategist and sought-after keynote speaker on story marketing. He has helped international brands, including Coca-Cola, Beyer Pharmaceutical, Cummins Diesel, American Express, and United States Air Force. The widely popular Business of Story podcast helps leaders of purpose-driven organizations clarify their stories to grow revenue and amplify their impact. Each episode brings you the brightest content creators, advertising creatives, authors, screenwriters, makers, marketers, and brand raconteurs that show you how to craft and tell compelling brand stories that sell. Learn more about working with Park Howell and getting your brand story straight on our website.
(Bloomberg) -- Caleb Hannan, a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek, discusses his article on Ted Frank, who has taken it upon himself to challenge the status quo of class action lawsuits, where lawyers often make money, while leaving the plaintiffs empty handed. He speaks with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."
(Bloomberg) -- Caleb Hannan, a reporter for Bloomberg Businessweek, discusses his article on Ted Frank, who has taken it upon himself to challenge the status quo of class action lawsuits, where lawyers often make money, while leaving the plaintiffs empty handed. He speaks with June Grasso and Michael Best on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
Microsoft v. Baker involved a class action lawsuit against the Microsoft Company by plaintiffs who alleged that during games on their Xbox video game console, the game disc would come loose and scratch the internal components of the device, permanently damaging the Xbox. Since only .4% of Xbox consoles experienced this issue, the district court determined that "a class action suit could not be certified and individuals in the suit would have to come forward on their own." The named plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where the court overturned the lower court's decision and held that the district court misapplied the law and abused its discretion in removing the class action allegations. -- On Monday, June 12 the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the ruling of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the decision. Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute joined us to discuss the holding and its significance. -- Featuring: Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney, Director, Center for Class Action Fairness, Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Backstories Studio Principal Ted Frank shows how to apply Hollywood tools to create and give great presentations.You'll Learn:The fundamental key to captivating peopleBest practices to help your audience remember the crucial pointsKeys to keeping it simple and real in your presentationAbout TedTed Frank is the principal and story strategist for Backstories Studio, with clients like Netflix, ESPN, and Twitter. He is the author of Get to the Heart, a book on how to apply movie style storytelling to presentations.Items Mentioned in this Show:Book: Get to the Heart by Ted FrankBook: Trust Factor: The Science of Creating High Performance Companies by Paul ZakCompany: Backstories StudioTED Talk: Paul Zak on trust (and Paul Zak on our show!)View transcript, show notes, and links at https://awesomeatyourjob.com/ep136See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Backstories Studio Principal Ted Frank shows how to apply Hollywood tools to create and give great presentations. You'll Learn: The fundamental key to captivating people Best practices to help your audience remember the crucial points Keys to keeping it simple and real in your presentation About Ted Ted Frank is the principal and story strategist for Backstories Studio, with clients like Netflix, ESPN, and Twitter. He is the author of Get to the Heart, a book on how to apply movie style storytelling to presentations.
Backstories Studio Principal Ted Frank shows how to apply Hollywood tools to create and give great presentations. You'll Learn: The fundamental key to captivating people Best practices to help your audience remember the crucial points Keys to keeping it simple and real in your presentation About Ted Ted Frank is the principal and story strategist for Backstories Studio, with clients like Netflix, ESPN, and Twitter. He is the author of Get to the Heart, a book on how to apply movie style storytelling to presentations. View transcript, show notes, and links at http://AwesomeAtYourJob.com/ep136
Segment 1: Jill Lublin is an international speaker on the topics of radical influence, publicity, networking, kindness, and referrals. She is the author of three best-selling books including “Get Noticed…Get Referrals” and co-author of “Guerilla Publicity” and “Networking Magic”.Segment 2: Ted Frank is a story strategist at Backstories Studio. He is the author of the book “Get to The Heart: How Storytelling Secrets Can Make Your Presentation Clear, Compelling, and Earn You a Seat at the Table”.Segment 3: Rhett Power is the author of The Entrepreneur's Book of Actions and co-founder of Wild Creations, an award-winning start-up toy company. A member of the United States Department of State's International Speakers Program, Rhett travels the globe speaking about entrepreneurship, leadership, and management.Segment 4: Sara Taylor is the founder and president of deepSEE Consulting, and has worked with HR managers, chief diversity officers, and high-level executives at organizations such as Coca-Cola. She is the author of a new book “Filter Shift: How Effective People See the World”.Segment 5: Maria Yuan is the Founder and CEO of IssueVoter. Maria's professional experience spans strategy, politics, recruiting, social enterprise, investment banking, and corporate development.Sponsored by Nextiva.
Ted Frank, Story Strategist at Backstories Studio, joins Andy to talk about how movie storytelling can dramatically improve corporate presentations."There are three parts to it: They make it simple. They make it real. And they make it powerful.""Screenwriters start with three key scenes...and they develop those first. And then they have a map of where the story is going.""We are all emotional people, even though we forget when we present.""Sound can create an emotional bond.""The secret ingredient... that will absolutely make people engaged with it and captivated with it is... tension."Ted's DrinkBourbon Basil Smash (adapted from Rachael Ray Every Day)10 Thai or regular basil leaves1 1/2 ounces bourbon3/4 ounce fresh lemon juice1/2 ounce ginger-infused simple syrup1/4 ounce lemon-lime simple syrupBasil leafCreating Ginger-infused Simple Syrup: Put equal parts water and sugar into a saucepan. Cook over medium heat until sugar is dissolved. Turn off heat. Add ginger to taste. Once syrup is dissolved, remove ginger and store.In a cocktail shaker filled with ice, shake the first 5 ingredients until cold; strain into a rocks glass half-filled with lightly crushed ice. Stir; top with more lightly crushed ice. Garnish with basil leaf.LinksBackstories Studio (website)Ted Frank (Linkedin)Get to the Heart (Amazon)
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, over 97% of mergers and acquisitions result in "strike suits," litigation seeking to enjoin a merger that often quickly settles for attorneys' fees and supplemental disclosures to shareholders. In In Re: Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litigation, 832 F.3d 718, a recent case over such a settlement, Judge Richard Posner called the practice a "racket," and the Seventh Circuit rejected the lawsuit’s claims. Meanwhile, Delaware and New York courts have come out on opposite sides of the issue. -- Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who successfully argued Walgreen and has multiple appeals on the subject pending in other jurisdictions, discussed developments in the area over the last year and answer questions. -- Featuring: Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney & Director, Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), CEI.
Ted Frank, story strategist at Backstories Studio, shares how to Bring the Power of Movies to Business. Ted is the author of “Get to the Heart: How Storytelling Secrets Can Make Your Presentation Clear, Compelling, and Earn You a Seat at the Table”. www.GetToTheHeartBook.com
This episode of Big Blend Radio's Happy Hour variety show, aired live on Feb. 1, 2017: Ted Frank – author of “Get to the Heart: How Storytelling Secrets Can Make Your Presentation Clear, Compelling, and Earn You a Seat at the Table”; Arelene Gould, Molly Dickerson & Harry Thompson discuss the 43rd Annual Melrose Plantation Arts & Crafts Festival in Natchitoches, Louisiana; singer-songwriter Carrie Elkin discusses solo album ‘The Penny Collector’; Les McCabe, President and CEO of Global Green USA. www.BigBlendRadio.com
This week on Mom Talk Radio, Shellie Bailey-Shah, editor of KidTripster.com, shares 5 ways to save money on your spring break vacation. Spotlight on Moms features Sami Cone of SamiCone.com. Margot Machol Bisnow, author of Raising an Entrepreneur: 10 Rules for Nurturing Risk Takers, Problem Solvers and Change Makers, shares advice for parents on raising kids with entrepreneurial drive. Mira Halpert, founder of the 3D Learner Program, shares how to MAP your child’s success. Ted Frank, story strategist for Backstories Studio, shares how to take your everyday work and transform it into a powerful presentation.
The post Bootstrap Boxer & Class Action Scourge with Ed Latimore & Ted Frank appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.
. The post Judicial Horizon & Class Action Objector with Clark Neily & Ted Frank appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
