Unclaimed iRenew Class Action Settlement Funds Still Remain, Appeals Court Finds

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A California appeals court has ordered the distribution of approximately $27,000 in unpaid residual funds remaining from the $1.3 million iRenew bracelet class action lawsuit settlement that was distributed in April 2013.

The Order is part of a May 28 ruling reversing the iRenew class action settlement, in which the appellate court ruled that Class Members’ due process rights were violated by the trial court judge’s requirement that they be present at the settlement fairness hearing in order to enter an objection.

Plaintiffs alleged in two iRenew bracelet class action lawsuits that iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC, Harvest Trading Group Inc., and Harvest Direct, LLC engaged in false and misleading representations about the efficacy of the so-called “energy” bracelet, which the Defendants claimed “balanced the body’s biofield to improve wellness, balance, flexibility and strength.” Plaintiffs disagreed, alleging that the iRenew bracelet was ineffective.

The Defendants denied the allegations but agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement in late 2012. The iRenew settlement provided to Class Members either a full reimbursement to those who had proof of purchase, or a $19.95 cash award for those without proof of purchase. The agreement also awarded $215,000 in attorneys fees.

Class Member Bert Chapa objected to the attorneys fees, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the fees because it left an insufficient amount for the Class. Chapa also argued that requiring objectors to appear personally at the final approval hearing was unreasonable and violated Class Members’ due process rights.

The Court of Appeal of the State of California disagreed with Chapa’s first assertion, saying the argument “has no merit.”

“When we cross-check the fee award against the value of the common fund, we find no abuse of discretion. Here, the attorney fees constituted only 16.5 percent of the total fund potentially available under the settlement agreement, well within the range of acceptable attorney fee awards,” which can legally be up to 30 percent, the Court said.

The appeals court did, however, agree with Chapa’s second argument, noting that significant case law pointed to the possibility of a written objection, not just in cases focused on a single state, but certainly in one with a nationwide reach.

In the decision, the jurists noted that “although appellant was afforded the opportunity to be heard, there may have been many Class Members whose objections were chilled. Misstating objectors’ rights such that they are dissuaded from exercising their opportunity to be heard does not fairly apprise class members of their options associated with the settlement. For these reasons, the order granting final approval of the settlement must be reversed.”

This may raise more questions than answers, however, since distribution of the iRenew class action settlement was already made to Class Members, minus the $27,000 in unclaimed funds. While the Court cannot request this money back, the decision will likely have an affect on future class action settlements by forcing trial courts to allow Class Members to send in written objections rather than appear in person.

More information on the terms of the iRenew bracelet class action settlement can be found at www.iRenewSettlement.com.

Chapa is represented by Timothy R. Hanigan of Lang Hanigan & Carvalho LLP.

The class is represented by class action lawyers Michael Louis Kelly, Behram V. Parekh and Heather M. Baker

The iRenew Bracelet Class Action Lawsuit is Seryl Litwin, et al. v. iRenew Bio Energy Solutions, LLC, Case No. BC447114, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District.