{"id":4478,"date":"2003-06-07T23:01:42","date_gmt":"2003-06-08T03:01:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2003\/06\/07\/ftc-opposes-inflated-fees-bas"},"modified":"2011-08-05T15:00:55","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T19:00:55","slug":"ftc-opposes-inflated-fees-based-on-face-value-of-coupons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2003\/06\/07\/ftc-opposes-inflated-fees-based-on-face-value-of-coupons\/","title":{"rendered":"FTC Opposes Inflated Fees Based on Face Value of Coupons"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n


\n

The Federal Trade Commission announced in a <\/STRONG><\/FONT>press release<\/FONT><\/STRONG><\/A> <\/STRONG>on June 6th, that its staff had filed an amicus brief<\/A><\/B><\/FONT><\/I> opposing the proposed class action settlement in the Texas case of Haese v. H&R Block, Inc<\/I>. — due mostly to excessive attorneys fees.  The plaintiffs claimed that H&R Block helped them get income tax “refund anticipation loans,” but failed to disclose it was receiving a “kick back” from the lending bank on each RAL.  The settlement would give the 700,000 class members coupons<\/STRONG> for a $20 H&R tax prep rebate, software and planning booklet for five years.  Based on the alleged face-value of the coupons, plaintiffs’ lawyers estimated the value of the settlement at $261 million, and requested attorneys’ fees of $49 million<\/B>.<\/FONT><\/P>
\n

In its amicus brief<\/A><\/B>,<\/FONT><\/I> the FTC staff:<\/FONT><\/P>
\n