A Texas attorney, Christopher Bandas, has made his living objecting to class settlements, hoping to leverage a payment from the settling attorneys to ensure their settlement is not derailed (often called “greenmail”).  Mr. Bandas is listed as an objector in 76 cases—the most recorded—at www.serialobjector.com.  

• Recently, however, courts have deemed his playbook unethical.  Last November, the Illinois Court of Appeals found that he had engaged in a pattern of “rent-seeking behavior.”  More recently, an Illinois federal judge found that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and enjoined Bandas from groundlessly objecting to class action settlements. 
• Specifically, the court barred Bandas from filing “any objection to any proposed class action settlement in any state or federal court” unless (i) the objection states “whether it applies only to the objector, to a specific subset of the class, or to the entire class,” along with the specific grounds for the objection and (ii) “[a]ny payment in connection with the objection is disclosed and approved by the court.”      
• These requirements largely track the 2018 amendments to Rule 23(e)(5), which seek to deter frivolous and boilerplate objections and place stricter limits on greenmail payments.  Although the Rules’ new crackdown on bad-faith objectors is a welcome development, the 2018 Amendments may spur professional objectors to pursue appeals more earnestly, thereby protracting litigation and making it more difficult for class action defendants to “buy peace.”         

Read the Illinois district court’s order here.