When Classes Collide: Court Rejects $7.25 Billion Visa/MasterCard Settlement, Competition News Volume 2016, Issue 1

by Pepper Hamilton LLP
Contact

Pepper Hamilton LLP

The Second Circuit’s decision highlights that, whenever there are groups of plaintiffs that will obtain different categories of relief as a part of a settlement, both plaintiffs and defense counsel should seriously consider whether the classes need separate counsel in order to adequately protect the interests of the plaintiffs.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected a $7.25 billion class action settlement of a lawsuit, initially filed in 2006 and brought by merchants against Visa and MasterCard, on the basis that there was an unacceptable conflict between certain members of the class and the class representatives and counsel.

Background and Proceedings

The antitrust class action was brought on behalf of approximately 12 million merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard, as well as issuing and acquiring banks. The plaintiffs alleged a conspiracy to inflate interchange fees in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that several of Visa and MasterCard’s network rules, including the “honor all cards” and “anti-steering” rules, were anticompetitive.1 The “honor all cards” rule requires merchants that accept a network’s credit cards to accept all of that network’s credit cards, regardless of the differences in interchange fees. The “anti-steering” rules include the “no surcharge” and “no discount” rules, which prohibit merchants from charging different prices at the point of sale based on the means of payment.

The plaintiffs alleged that these rules allowed banks issuing the cards to impose artificially inflated interchange fees and that merchants had little choice but to accept the dictated terms. After multiple rounds of settlement negotiations, the parties eventually agreed on a settlement that divided the plaintiffs into two classes: (1) the Rule 23(b)(3) class of merchants accepting Visa and/or MasterCard from 2004-2012 and (2) the Rule 23 (b)(2) class of merchants that accepted (or will accept) Visa and/or MasterCard from 2012 onward. The proposed settlement provided for distribution of the $7.25 billion fund to the Rule 23(b)(3) class, while providing only for injunctive relief that changed Visa and MasterCard network rules to the Rule 23(b)(2) class. Because the Rule 23(b)(3) class would receive money, instead of injunctive relief, its members had the ability to opt out of the class and to pursue direct actions. Meanwhile, because the Rule 23(b)(2) class would benefit in the form of injunctive relief, its members could not opt out. The district court gave final approval to the settlement in December 2013.  Since the Second Circuit’s decision rejecting class settlement, the parties in favor of the class settlement have sought an extension of time in which to file a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.  At the district court level, motions are currently pending on the appointment of new class counsel.

The Decision and the Conflict

A group of objectors, including several large retailers, appealed the district court’s approval of the settlement. Relying on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997), and Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999), the Second Circuit held that the representation of both classes of settlement plaintiffs was inadequate because “the class representatives had interests antagonistic to those of some of the class members they were representing.” In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 12-4671, 2016 BL 210542, at *9 (2d Cir. June 30, 2016).

The court determined that there was an inherent conflict between the two classes because the Rule 23(b)(3) class would want to maximize its compensation for past harm, while the Rule 23(b)(2) class would want to maximize the restraints on the Visa/MasterCard network rules to prevent harm in the future. As a result, the class counsel and representatives who negotiated the settlement agreement impermissibly exchanged benefits between each class in negotiations. The Second Circuit ruled that, after Amchem and Ortiz, “a class divided between holders of present and future claims requires division into homogenous subclasses [each] with separate representation.” Id. at *10.

The court explained that this conflict was particularly apparent when considering the $544.8 million in fees that class counsel stood to receive as part of the settlement. The court held that it cannot assume class counsel adequately represented a given group’s interests when “‘the potential for gigantic fees’ is within counsel’s grasp” for representation of one group but only if counsel can resolve another group of plaintiffs’ claims. Id. at *10.

The court was also concerned with the adequacy of class representation because the Rule 23(b)(2) plaintiffs that would receive the benefit of injunctive relief did not have the ability to opt out of the class. However, the court also pointed out that the ability to opt out of the Rule 23(b)(2) class would not have necessarily resolved the conflict problems.

The court went on to say that its ruling was not intended to suggest that the (b)(3) and (b)(2) classes can never be combined into a single case or that they always require separate counsel. Rather, the distinct problems in this case arise when the (b)(2) and (b)(3) classes seek distinct relief, do not have separate counsel, have non-overlapping membership, and are certified for settlement only. The court explained that, when a class is certified for settlement only, “the class is especially vulnerable to conflicts of interest because the imperatives of the settlement process, which come to bear on the defendants, the class counsel, and even the mediators and the court itself, can influence the definition of the classes and the allocation of relief.” Id. at *12.

In addition to the inadequacy of class representation, the court also held that the settlement did not substantively protect the interests of many members of the (b)(2) class. While courts have an interest in approving class action settlements to bring finality to large class action cases that can create “nearly limitless liability” for defendants, courts must continue to ensure that class members’ due process rights are protected through adequate representation. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 396 F.3d 96, 106 (2d Cir. 2005). Because of recent changes in the laws governing credit card networks and the specific terms of the settlement, some members of the (b)(2) class did not stand to receive an “appreciable benefit from the settlement,” yet agreed to “release virtually any claims they would ever have against the defendants.” In re Payment Card Interchange Fee, No. 12-4671, 2016 BL 210542, at *14. Essentially, this was “a matter of class counsel trading the claims of many merchants for relief they cannot use: they actually received nothing.” Id. at *15.

Takeaways

The Second Circuit’s decision highlights two important issues to consider in the resolution of class action cases. First, whenever there are groups of plaintiffs that, for whatever reason, will obtain different categories of relief as a part of a settlement, both plaintiffs and defense counsel should seriously consider whether the classes need separate counsel in order to adequately protect the interests of the plaintiffs and to preserve any potential settlement. Second, the parties need to scrutinize the terms of any deal that could appear to provide little or no benefit to any class of plaintiffs and still requires those plaintiffs to give a broad release as part of the settlement. Third, if it appears that certain groups of class members would receive less value, the parties must explain clearly why such a disparity is appropriate or why no disparity actually exists under the circumstances of the case.

 

 

 

Endnote

1 Despite (1) the “Durbin Amendment” of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010’s limitation on the interchange fee that banks can charge and recognition of the right of merchants to discount debit card purchases and (2) a 2011 Antitrust Division consent decree in which the credit card companies agreed merchants could discount transactions to steer consumers to other forms of payment, the plaintiffs continued their litigation.

 

 

Written by:

Pepper Hamilton LLP
Contact
more
less

Pepper Hamilton LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.