Mikey Campbell
The class representative in a California anti-trust lawsuit regarding alleged anti-poaching measures employed by Apple, Google and other Silicon Valley tech companies, is seeking a larger-than-normal chunk of a proposed $415 million payout for his work in securing more lucrative settlement terms.
Michael Devine, a former Adobe Systems engineer, is requesting U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh modify terms of a proposed $415 million settlement reached yesterday by Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel, claiming he played a pivotal role in securing a larger reward for fellow plaintiffs.
Stipulated in a joinder filed in court on Friday, Devine is asking for up to $160,000 for his role in the settlement. The sum is, as noted by The Wall Street Journal, twice the amount being sought by the suit's four other named plaintiffs. The class' approximately 64,000 employees will receive about $5,000 each.
"I'm glad that I stood up for the class and that I was able to have such a substantial impact on the outcome," Devine said. "I took my responsibilities seriously and I showed that class representatives can make a real difference."
Devine was the lone voice of dissent in a prior $324.5 million settlement bid reached last April, and called the offer "grossly inadequate" in a letter of objection filed with the court. The class representative made sure his remonstration attained maximum public exposure by posting the document online before it was made available through proper court channels and participating in an interview with The New York Times.
Judge Koh agreed with Devine and rejected the initial offer, saying Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe should "pay their fare share" as compared to codefendants that settled earlier on in the lawsuit. In 2013, Intuit, Pixar, and Lucasfilm settled out of court for $20 million.
Citing the successful opposition that resulted in an approximately 28-percent premium over the original settlement terms — and a heightened risk of not finding future employment because of it — Devine requests a larger reward commensurate of his service.
The lawsuit alleges Apple and other Silicon Valley heavyweights employed anti-poaching tactics between 2005 and 2009, effectively suppressing wages by limiting job mobility.
Judge Koh has yet to approve the $415 million settlement, $81 million of which is earmarked for attorneys' fees.
William Gallagher
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
Christine McKee
Sponsored Content
Wesley Hilliard
23 Comments
And now, they will turn on each other. LOL
Show me the money!
81 million for attorneys???? Crooks!!! The laws need to change to cap attorneys' fees in these cases! Why in the world should such a large share of the settlement go into their fat greasy hands?
Had it been Samsung, judge Koh would've slashed that number by ten, Samsung would then appeal and she would slash it again. In the end everyone of those employees would be set to receive ten cents and Samsung would refuse to pay a single penny.
The writer Mikey Campbell needs to go back to school for a few semesters of English. The last sentence was grammatically atrocious. If you use "IF," then "THEN," "WILL" and/or "BE" must follow. In this case, "of which is" must be deleted. Lawyers taking 81 million? Child's play compared to this crime. =P