87 F. Supp. 3d 650
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Antitrust suit against SESAC challenging its blanket licenses for local TV stations since 2008.
- Case centered on whether SESAC's all-or-nothing blanket license unlawfully restrains trade and monopolizes performance rights.
- Court denied SESAC’s summary judgment on liability; case proceeded toward class certification and settlement negotiations.
- Settlement negotiations aided by Judges Wood and Francis; ultimately reached terms including monetary relief and conduct restrictions.
- October 31, 2014 preliminary approval; February 18, 2015 fairness hearing and final rulings certifying the settlement class and approving the settlement and fees.
- Class defined to include TV stations owned by ABC, CBS, and NBCUniversal networks, excluding Univision/UniMas stations; expanded to include Os; revised SACAC replacing Hoak entities with Gray Television.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement class should be certified for settlement purposes | Meredith supports class cert. | SESAC opposes absent strong common issues. | Certification granted for settlement purposes. |
| Whether the settlement terms are fair, adequate, and reasonable | Settlement provides past relief and long-term protections. | Terms may undercompensate potential damages. | Settlement approved as fair, adequate, and reasonable. |
| Whether the plan of allocation is fair and adequate | Pro rata allocation based on fees paid is fair. | Allocation could misallocate some claims. | Plan of allocation approved. |
| Whether plaintiffs' counsel fees and expenses are reasonable | Fees reflect substantial work and risk. | Fees should be limited. | Fees awarded; $11,891,751 in fees and $4,225,012 in expenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Prudential Sec. Inc. Ltd. P’ships Litig., 163 F.R.D. 200 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (recognition of settlement class utility in large, low-value claims)
- Weinberger v. Kendrick, 698 F.2d 61 (2d Cir.1982) (temporary settlement classes useful for resolving disputes)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S.) (predominance and superiority considerations tied to class actions in antitrust)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S.) (settlement fairness and class certification standards in complex actions)
- In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124 (2d Cir.2001) (common questions and damages proof in antitrust settlements)
- City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir.1974) (nine-factor test for substantively fair settlements)