You read it here first — DirectRevenue is agreeing to ground-breaking settlement terms in bringing the class action brought against it (March 2005) to closure.
And there were 12 items outlined. I wasn’t sure whether Direct Revenue could figure a way around this, but after reading the Editor’s post note below, I think that worry may be moot:
3:25 PM CT
In a note to me this afternoon, David Fish (of The Collins Law Firm, P.C.) wished to make something very clear regarding DirectRevenue’s control over distributors. That being:
“One of the main reasons that we agreed to the settlement relates to the ability of our law firm, the Class of Illinois residents, and a Federal court to hold DirectRevenue accountable for any misconduct that may have been aided by one of its distributors.”
In the same email Mr. Fish said, “The bottom line is that if there is a violation the terms of the settlement, we don’t care whether DirectRevenue is going to try to ‘pass the buck.’ We will seek to have DirectRevenue held accountable – If DirectRevenue (or its distributors) violate the settlement agreement, we have the right to ask a Federal judge to hold DirectRevenue in contempt of court for violating a court order. This is why we insisted on DirectRevenue agreeing to ‘injunctive relief.’ ”
Well done! Now let’s see if the courts have the wherewithal to hold them to it.
Thanks Jeff for the report.