Services

Judge Lee Rosenthal, Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States, (Jan. 22, 2002), addressing Mr. Hilsee in a public hearing on proposed changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23:

I want to tell you how much we collectively appreciate your working with the Federal Judicial Center to improve the quality of the model notices that they’re developing. That’s a tremendous contribution and we appreciate that very much . . . You raised three points that are criteria for good noticing, and I was interested in your thoughts on how the rule itself that we’ve proposed could better support the creation of those or the insistence on those kinds of notices . . .

Judge Marvin Shoob, In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., 141 F.R.D. 534, 548 (N.D. Ga. 1992):

The Court finds Mr. Hilsee’s testimony to be credible. Mr. Hilsee’s experience is in the advertising industry. It is his job to determine the best way to reach the most people. Mr. Hilsee answered all questions in a forthright and clear manner. Mr. Hilsee performed additional research prior to the evidentiary hearing in response to certain questions that were put to him by defendants at his deposition . . . The Court believes that Mr. Hilsee further enhanced his credibility when he deferred responding to the defendant’s deposition questions at a time when he did not have the responsive data available and instead utilized the research facilities normally used in his industry to provide the requested information.

Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, 2007 WL 283431, at *6 (E.D. La.):

Mr. Hilsee is a highly regarded expert in class action notice who has extensive experience designing and executing notice programs that have been approved by courts across the country. Furthermore, he has handled notice plans in class action cases affected by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, see In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Products Liability Litigation, MDL 1632, p. 15-16 (E.D. La. Sept. 6, 2006) (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Final Approval of Class Settlement), and has recently published an article on this very subject, see Todd B. Hilsee, Gina M. Intrepido, & Shannon R. Wheatman, Hurricanes, Mobility, and Due Process: The “Desire to Inform” Requirement for Effective Class Notice is Highlighted by Katrina, 80 Tul. L.Rev. 1771 (2006) (detailing obstacles and solutions to providing effective notice after Hurricane Katrina).

Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, Carnegie v. Household Int’l., (Aug. 28, 2006) 98 C 2178 (N.D. Ill.):

Class members received notice of the proposed settlement pursuant to an extensive notice program designed and implemented by Todd B. Hilsee . . . Mr. Hilsee has worked with the Federal Judicial Center to improve the quality of class notice. His work has been praised by numerous federal and state judges.

Mr. Justice Peter Cumming, Wilson v. Servier Canada, 49 C.P.C. (4th) 233, [2000] O.J. 3392:

[A] class-notification expert, Mr. Todd Hilsee, to provide advice and to design an appropriate class action notice plan for this proceeding. Mr. Hilsee’s credentials and expertise are impressive. The defendants accepted him as an expert witness. Mr. Hilsee provided evidence through an extensive report by way of affidavit, upon which he had been cross-examined. His report meets the criteria for admissibility as expert evidence. R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852.

Judge Sarah S. Vance, In re Babcock and Wilcox Co., (Aug. 25, 2000) 00-0558 (E.D. La.):

Furthermore, the Committee has not rebutted the affidavit of Todd Hilsee . . . that the (debtor’s notice) plan’s reach and frequency methodology is consistent with other asbestos-related notice programs, mass tort bankruptcies, and other significant notice program . . . After reviewing debtor’s Notice Plan, and the objections raised to it, the Court finds that the plan is reasonably calculated to apprise unknown claimants of their rights and meets the due process requirements set forth in Mullane . . . Accordingly, the Notice Plan is approved.

Judge Susan Illston, on Todd Hilsee’s presentation at the ABA’s 7th Annual National Institute on Class Actions, Oct. 24, 2003, N.D. Cal.:

The notice program that was proposed here today, I mean, it’s breathtaking. That someone should have thought that clearly about how an effective notice would get out. I’ve never seen anything like that proposed in practice . . . I thought the program was excellent. The techniques available for giving a notification is something that everyone should know about.

Judge M. Joseph Tiemann, Billieson v. Housing Authority of New Orleans, (May 27, 2011) Case No. NO. 94-19231 (Civil District Court For The Parish Of Orleans, State Of Louisiana):

[T]he Court also gave consideration to the following. . .The fact that Mr. Hilsee is a highly-regarded Notice Expert, and has provided thoughtful, scientific, carefully researched and detailed reports, analyses, and ultimately, his Affidavit. His recommendations are grounded in relevant experience regarding communicating complex legal information to class members in class action litigation. He was a lead author of the Federal Judicial Center’s (the “FJC”) Model Plain Language Notices, as well as the FJC publication entitled 2010 Judges’ Class Action Notice and Claims Process Checklist and Plain Language Guide, and he contributed content on the subject of notice to the FJC’s 2010 3rd edition of Managing Class Actions: A Pocket Guide for Judges (all of which may be found at www.fjc.gov.)

Judge Richard G. Stearns, In re Lupron Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., 228 F.R.D. 75, 96 (D. Mass. 2005):

I have examined the materials that were used to publicize the settlement, and I agree with Hilsee’s opinion that they complied in all respects with the “plain, easily understood language” requirement of Rule 23(c). In sum, I find that the notice given meets the requirements of due process.

Ontario Court of Appeal, Currie v. McDonald’s Rests. of Canada Ltd., (Feb. 16, 2005) 2005 CanLII 3360 (ON C.A.):

The respondents rely upon the evidence of Todd Hilsee, an individual with experience in developing notice programs for class actions. In Hilsee’s opinion, the notice to Canadian members of the plaintiff class in Boland was inadequate . . . In response to Hilsee’s evidence, the appellants filed the affidavit of Wayne Pines, who prepared the Boland notice plan . . . I am satisfied that it would be substantially unjust to find that the Canadian members of the putative class in Boland had received adequate notice of the proceedings and of their right to opt out . . . I am not persuaded that we should interfere with the motion judge’s findings . . . The right to opt out must be made clear and plain to the non-resident class members and I see no basis upon which to disagree with the motion judge’s assessment of the notice. Nor would I interfere with the motion judge’s finding that the mode of the notice was inadequate.

Judge John Speroni, Avery v. State Farm Auto. Ins., (Feb. 25, 1998) 97-L-114 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Williamson Co.):

[T]his Court having carefully considered all of the submissions, and reviewed their basis, finds Mr. Hilsee’s testimony to be credible. Mr. Hilsee carefully and conservatively testified to the reach of the Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice Plan, supporting the reach numbers with verifiable data on publication readership, demographics and the effect that overlap of published notice would have on the reach figure . . .This Court’s opinion as to Mr. Hilsee’s credibility, and the scientific basis of his opinions is bolstered by the findings of other judges that Mr. Hilsee’s testimony is credible.

Judge John D. Allen, Carter v. North Central Life Ins., (April 24, 2007) No. SU-2006-CV-3764-6 (Ga. Super. Ct.):

[T]he Parties submitted the Affidavit of Todd Hilsee, the Court-appointed Notice Administrator and one of the pre-eminent class action notice experts in North America. After completing the necessary rigorous analysis, including careful consideration of Mr. Hilsee’s Affidavit, the Court finds that . . .The Notices prepared in this matter were couched in plain, easily understood language and were written and designed to the highest communication standards. The Notice Plan effectively reached a substantial percentage of Class Members and delivered noticeable Notices designed to capture Class Members’ attention;

Judge Catherine C. Blake, In re Royal Ahold Securities and “ERISA” Litig., 2006 WL 132080, at *4 (D. Md.):

The Court further APPROVES the proposed Notice Plan, as set forth in the Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee On International Settlement Notice Plan, dated December 19, 2005 (Docket No. 684). The Court finds that the form of Notice, the form of Summary Notice, and the Notice Plan satisfy the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, due process, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all members of the Class.

Judge Catherine C. Blake, In re Royal Ahold Securities and “ERISA” Litig., (June 16, 2006) MDL-1539 (D. Md.):

In that regard, I would also comment on the notice. The form and scope of the notice in this case. . . has been again remarkable . . . The use of sort of plain language, the targeting of publications and media, the website with the translation into multiple languages, the mailings that have been done, I think you all are to be congratulated, and Mr. Hilsee and Claims Administrator as well.

Judge Sarah S. Vance, In re Educ. Testing Serv., PLT 7-12 Test Scoring Litig., 447 F.Supp.2d 612, 627 (E.D. La. 2006):

At the fairness hearing, class counsel, the Special Master, notice expert Todd Hilsee, and the Court Appointed Disbursing Agent detailed the reasons for requiring claims forms . . . As Todd Hilsee pointed out in his testimony, because plaintiffs had the choice of either individualized damages or an expedited payment, to send the expedited payments with the notice has the potential of encouraging plaintiffs to forego individualized recovery for far less than value, merely by cashing the check. The obvious undesirability of this suggestion gives the unmistakable appearance that the objection was captious. The objection to the claims process for expedited payments is overruled.

Judge John R. Padova, Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham, (Apr. 22, 2005) 00-CV-6222 (E.D. Pa.):

As required by this Court in its Preliminary Approval Order and as described in extensive detail in the Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee on Design Implementation and Analysis of Settlement Notice Program . . . Such notice to members of the Class is hereby determined to be fully in compliance with requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and due process and is found to be the best notice practicable under the circumstances and to constitute due and sufficient notice to all entities entitled thereto.

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Zarebski v. Hartford Insurance, (February 13, 2007) CV-2006-409-3 (Cir. Ct. Ark.):

Having admitted and reviewed the Affidavit of Todd Hilsee, and received testimony from Mr. Hilsee at the Settlement Approval Hearing concerning the success of the notice campaign, including the fact that written notice reached 91.8% of the potential Class Members, the Court finds that it is unnecessary to afford a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual Class Members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but failed to do so. The Court also concludes that the extremely small number of objections to the Stipulation and Proposed Settlement embodied therein supports the Court’s decision to not offer a second exclusion window.

Judge Joe E. Griffin, Beasley v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, (June 13, 2006) CV-2005-58-1 (Cir. Ct. Ark.):

[R]eceived testimony from Mr. Hilsee at the Settlement Approval Hearing concerning the success of the notice campaign, including the fact that written notice reached 97.7% of the potential Class members, the Court finds that it is unnecessary to afford a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual Class Members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion, but did not do so. The Court also concludes that the lack of valid objections also supports the Court’s decision to not offer a second exclusion window . . . Although the Notice Campaign was highly successful and resulted in actual mailed notice being received by over 400,000 Class Members, only one Class Member attempted to file a purported objection to either the Stipulation or Class Counsels’ Application for Fees. The Court finds it significant that out of over 400,000 Class Members who received mailed Notice, there was no opposition to the proposed Settlement or Class Counsels’ Application for Fees, other than the single void objection. The lack of opposition by a well-noticed Class strongly supports the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Stipulation and Class Counsels’ Application for Fees.

Judge Douglas L. Combs, Morris v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins., (Feb. 22, 2005) CJ-03-714 (D. Okla.):

I want the record also to demonstrate that with regard to notice, although my experience–this Court’s experience in class actions is much less than the experience of not only counsel for the plaintiffs, counsel for the defendant, but also the expert witness, Mr. Hilsee, I am very impressed that the notice was able to reach–be delivered to 97.5 percent members of the class. That, to me, is admirable. And I’m also–at the time that this was initially entered, I was concerned about the ability of notice to be understood by a common, nonlawyer person, when we talk about legalese in a court setting. In this particular notice, not only the summary notice but even the long form of the notice were easily understandable, for somebody who could read the English language, to tell them whether or not they had the opportunity to file a claim.

Judge William A. Mayhew, Nature Guard Cement Roofing Shingles Cases, (June 29, 2006) J.C.C.P. No. 4215 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

The method for dissemination of notice proposed by class counsel and described by the Declaration of Todd Hilsee . . . constitute the fairest and best notice practicable under the circumstances of this case . . .

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Zarebski v. Hartford Insurance, (February 13, 2007) CV-2006-409-3 (Cir. Ct. Ark):

Additionally, the court was provided with expert testimony from Todd Hilsee at the Settlement Approval Hearing concerning the adequacy of the notice program . . . Based on the Court’s review of the evidence admitted and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that the Class Notice, as disseminated to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with provisions of the Preliminary Approval Order, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all members of the Settlement Class.

Judge Ross P. LaDart, Meckstroth v. Toyota Motor Sales, (February 7, 2007) 583-318 (24th Jud. D. Ct., Jefferson Par., La.):

[U]nless there’s any objection, the Court is aware of Mr. Hilsee’s reputation. I’m aware of the most recent Tulane Law Review and other publications by you and members of your staff. He’s so accepted as an expert as tendered.

Judge Sarah S. Vance, In re Educ. Testing Serv., PLT 7-12 Test Scoring Litig., 447 F.Supp.2d 612, 617 (E.D. La. 2006):

At the fairness hearing, the Court received testimony from the Notice Administrator, Todd Hilsee, who described the forms and procedure used to notify class members of the proposed settlement and their rights with respect to it . . . The Court is satisfied that notice to the class fully complied with the requirements of Rule 23.

Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litig., 231 F.R.D. 221, 236 (S.D. W. Va. 2005):

As Mr. Hilsee explained in his supplemental affidavit, the adequacy of notice is measured by whether notice reached Class Members and gave them an opportunity to participate, not by actual participation. (Hilsee Supp. Aff. 6(c)(v), June 8, 2005) . . . Not one of the objectors support challenges to the adequacy of notice with any kind of evidence; rather, these objections consist of mere arguments and speculation. I have, nevertheless, addressed the main arguments herein, and I have considered all arguments when evaluating the notice in this matter. Accordingly, after considering the full record of evidence and filings before the court, I FIND that notice in this matter comports with the requirements of Due Process under the Fifth Amendment and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(2) and 23(e).

Judge Alfred G. Chiantelli, Williams v. Weyerhaeuser, (Dec. 22, 2000) 995787 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco Co.):

The Class Notice complied with this Court’s Order, was the best practicable notice, and comports with due process . . . Based upon the uncontroverted proof Class Counsel have submitted to the Court, the Court finds that the settling parties undertook an extensive notice campaign designed by Todd Hilsee . . . a nationally recognized expert in this specialized field.

Judge James R. Williamson, Kline v. Progressive, (Nov. 14, 2002) 01-L-6 (Cir. Ct. Ill. Johnson Co.):

The Court has reviewed the Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee, one of the Court-appointed notice administrators, and finds that it is based on sound analysis. Mr. Hilsee has substantial experience designing and evaluating the effectiveness of notice programs.

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Sweeten v. American Empire Ins., (August 20, 2007), CV-2007-154-3, (Cir. Ct. Ark.):

[T]he Court . . . of course has recognized the testimony of Todd Hilsee . . . which was given here today in open court, and Mr. Hilsee being admitted as an expert in this particular field . . .

Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle, In re High Sulfur Content Gasoline Prods. Liability Litig., (November 8, 2006) MDL No. 1632 (E.D. La.):

[T]his Court approved a carefully-worded Notice Plan . . . See Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee on Motion by Billy Ray Kidwell, attached as Exhibit A; see also, Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee, attached as Exhibit C to the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Settlement (Record Doc. No. 71); Testimony of Todd Hilsee at Preliminary Approval Hearing, Tr. pp 6-17, attached as Exhibit B; Testimony of Todd Hilsee at Final Fairness Hearing, Tr. pp. 10-22, attached as Exhibit C.

Regional Senior Justice Winkler, Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General), (March 10, 2006) 00-CV-192059- CPA (Ont. Super. Ct.):

The plaintiffs have retained Todd Hilsee, an expert recognized by courts in Canada and the United States in respect of the design of class action notice programs, to design an effective national notice program . . . the English versions of the Notices provided to the court on this motion are themselves plainly worded and appear to be both informative and designed to be readily understood. It is contemplated that the form of notice will be published in English, French and Aboriginal languages, as appropriate for each media vehicle.

Judge James T. Genovese, West v. G&H Seed, (May 27, 2003) 99-C-4984-A (La. Jud. Dist. Ct. St. Landry Parish):

The court finds that, considering the testimony of Mr. Hilsee, the nature of this particular case, and the certifications that this court rendered in its original judgment which have been affirmed by the–for the most part, affirmed by the appellate courts, the court finds Mr. Hilsee to be quite knowledgeable in his field and certainly familiar with these types of cases . . . the notice has to be one that is practicable under the circumstances. The notice provided and prepared by Mr. Hilsee accomplishes that purpose . .

Judge Milton Gunn Shuffield, Scott v. Blockbuster, (Jan. 22, 2002), D162-535 (Tex. Jud. Dist. Ct. Jefferson Co.):

In order to maximize the efficiency of the notice . . . Todd Hilsee . . . prepared and oversaw the notification plan. The record reflects that Mr. Hilsee is very experienced in the area of notification in class action settlements . . . This Court concludes that the notice campaign was the best practicable, reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the settlement and afford them an opportunity to present their objections . . . The notice campaign was highly successful and effective, and it more than satisfied the due process and state law requirements for class notice.

Madame Justice Joan L. Lax, Wong v. TJX Companies, Inc., (February 5, 2008), 2008 CanLII 3421 (ON S.C.):

Mr. Hilsee has been recognized as a notice expert in Canadian class proceedings as well as in the United States . . . The Canadian notice plan is expected to reach a net audience of approximately 80.08% of all Canadian adults and approximately 85.72% of all Canadian adult shoppers . . . The notice plan not only comports with Canadian standards, but it has virtually the same coverage as in the United States.

The Honourable Daniel H. Tingley, J.S.C., Bosum v. Attorney General of Canada, (June 2, 2006), 2006 QCCS 3158 (CanLII):

The Court has as well heard the submissions of Counsel for the Petitioners and reviewed the Affidavit of Mr. Todd Hilsee sworn on May 17, 2006 together with the finalized French and English versions of the Notices . . . [The Court] ORDERS that the class members shall be notified of the Approval Hearing on or before June 25, 2006 generally in the form of the French and English versions of the Notices submitted with the Motion, which Notices are hereby approved.

Judge Kirk D. Johnson, Sweeten v. American Empire Ins., (August 20, 2007), No. CV-2007-1543, (Cir. Ct. Ark.):

Let [Mr. Hilsee] be so admitted for the purposes of this hearing, having been previously admitted by the Court and the Court having found his qualifications exemplary in this field.

Judge Richard G. Stearns, In re Lupron Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., 228 F.R.D. 75, 84 (D. Mass. 2005):

Todd B. Hilsee . . . has served as a notice expert in more than 175 class action cases, including In re Holocaust Victims Assets Litig., No. CV-96-4849 (E.D.N.Y.); In re Domestic Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., MDL 861 (N.D.Ga.); In re Dow Corning Corp., 95-20512-11 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.); In re Synthroid Mktg., MDL 1182 (N.D.III.); and In re Bridgestone/Firestone Tires Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1373 (S.D.Ind.). Hilsee was the only notice expert invited to testify before the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules on the amendment to Rule 23 requiring “clear, concise, plain language notices. “Hilsee was also asked by the Federal Judicial Center to design model notices to illustrate Rule 23 plain language “best practices.” . . .

Judge John D. Allen, Desportes v. American General Assurance, (April 24, 2007) SU-04-CV-3637 (Ga. Super. Ct.):

[T]he Parties submitted the Affidavit of Todd Hilsee, the Court-appointed Notice Administrator and one of the preeminent class action notice experts in North America. After completing the necessary rigorous analysis, including careful consideration of Mr. Hilsee’s Affidavit, the Court finds that [the notice] . . . fully satisfied the requirements of the Georgia Rules of Civil Procedure (including Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-23(c)(2) and (e)), the Georgia and United States Constitutions (including the Due Process Clause), the Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law.

Madame Justice Joan L. Lax, Donnelly v. United Technologies, (January, 28 2008), 2008 CanLII 2302 (ON S.C.):

In an affidavit sworn December 10, 2007, Todd Hilsee, an expert recognized by courts in Canada and the United States in respect of the design of class action notice programs, described the proposed Canadian Notice Plan, which is anticipated to have a ‘reach’ of approximately 82.4% of all homeowners and therefore a similar percentage of class members . . . I am satisfied that Mr. Hilsee’s plan is comprehensive, that it will have a high ‘reach’. . .

The Honourable Daniel H. Tingley, J.S.C., Bosum v. Attorney General of Canada, (March 15, 2006), 2006 QCCS 1370 (CanLII):

The Court has reviewed the proposed Notices, the Notice Plan submitted to it and the Affidavit of Todd Hilsee, sworn on March 3, 2006 . . . [The Court] DECLARES that the publication of the Notice and the contents of the Notice Plan satisfies the requirements of article 1025 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Judge Michael Maloan, Cox v. Shell Oil, 1995 WL 775363, at *6, (Tenn. Ch. Ct.):

Cox Class Counsel and the notice providers worked with Todd B. Hilsee, an experienced class action notice consultant, to design a class notice program of unprecedented reach, scope, and effectiveness. Mr. Hilsee was accepted by the Court as a qualified class notice expert . . . He testified at the Fairness Hearing, and his affidavit was also considered by the Court, as to the operation and outcome of this program.

Judge Marina Corodemus, Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber , (Oct. 30, 2001) No. MID-L-8839-00-MT (N.J. Super. Ct. Middlesex Co.):

The parties have crafted a notice program which satisfies due process requirements without reliance on an unreasonably burdensome direct notification process. The parties have retained Todd Hilsee . . . who has extensive experience designing similar notice programs . . . The form of the notice is reasonably calculated to apprise class members of their rights. The notice program is specifically designed to reach a substantial percentage of the putative settlement class members.

Judge Jerome E. Lebarre, Harp v. Qwest Communications, (June 21, 2002) 0110-10986 (Ore. Cir. Ct. Multnomah Co.):

So, this agreement is not calculated to communicate to plaintiffs any offer. And in this regard I accept the expert testimony conclusions of Mr. Todd Hilsee. Plaintiffs submitted an expert affidavit of Mr. Hilsee dated May 23 of this year, and Mr. Hilsee opines that the User Guide was deceptive and that there were many alternatives available to clearly communicate these matters . . .

Judge Dewey C. Whitenton, Ervin v. Movie Gallery, (Nov. 22, 2002) 13007 (Tenn. Ch.):

Based on the evidence submitted and based on the opinions of Todd Hilsee, a well-recognized expert on the distribution of class notices . . . MGA and class counsel have taken substantial and extraordinary efforts to ensure that as many class members as practicable received notice about the settlement. As demonstrated by the affidavit of Todd Hilsee, the effectiveness of the notice campaign and the very high level of penetration to the settlement class were truly remarkable . . . The notice campaign was highly successful and effective, and it more than satisfied the due process and state law requirements for class notice.

Judge Joe E. Griffin, Beasley v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, (June 13, 2006) CV-2005-58-1 (Cir. Ct. Ark.):

Additionally, the Court was provided with expert testimony from Todd Hilsee at the Settlement Approval Hearing concerning the adequacy of the notice program. Based on the Court’s review of the evidence admitted and argument of counsel, the Court finds and concludes that the Individual Notice and the Publication Notice, as disseminated to members of the Settlement Class in accordance with provisions of the Preliminarily Approval Order, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances . . . and the requirements of due process under the Arkansas and United States Constitutions.

Judge Fred Biery, McManus v. Fleetwood Enter., (Sept. 30, 2003) SA-99-CA-464-F (W.D. Tex.):

Based upon the uncontroverted showing Class Counsel have submitted to the Court, the Court finds that the settling parties undertook a thorough notice campaign designed by Todd Hilsee . . . a nationally-recognized expert in this specialized field . . . The Court finds and concludes that the Notice Program as designed and implemented provided the best practicable notice to the members of the Class, and satisfied the requirements of due process.

Judge Richard G. Stearns, In re Lupron Marketing & Sales Practices Litig., 228 F.R.D. 75, 96 (D. Mass. 2005):

With respect to the effectiveness of notice, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I accept the testimony of Todd Hilsee that the plan he designed achieved its objective of exposing 80 percent of the members of the consumer class . . .

Mr. Justice Maurice Cullity, Parsons/Currie v. McDonald’s Rests. of Canada Ltd., (Jan. 13, 2004) 2004 Carswell Ont. 76, 45 C.P.C. (5th) 304, [2004] O.J. No.83:

I found Mr. Hilsee’s criticisms of the notice plan in Boland to be far more convincing than Mr. Pines’ attempts during cross-examination and in his affidavit to justify his failure to conduct a reach and frequency analysis of McDonald’s Canadian customers. I find it impossible to avoid a conclusion that, to the extent that the notice plan he provided related to Canadian customers, it had not received more than a perfunctory attention from him. The fact that the information provided to the court was inaccurate and misleading and that no attempt was made to advise the court after the circulation error had been discovered might possibly be disregarded if the dissemination of the notice fell within an acceptable range of reasonableness. On the basis of Mr. Hilsee’s evidence, as well as the standards applied in class proceedings in this court, I am not able to accept that it did.

Judge Paul H. Alvarado, Microsoft I-V Cases, (July 6, 2004) J.C.C.P. No. 4106 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

[T]he Court finds the notice program of the proposed Settlement was extensive and appropriate. It complied with all requirements of California law and due process. Designed by an expert in the field of class notice, Todd B. Hilsee, the notice plan alone was expected to reach at least 80% of the estimated 14.7 million class members. (Hilsee Decl. Ex. 3, ¶ 28). The Settlement notice plan was ultimately more successful than anticipated and it now appears that over 80% of the class was notified of the Settlement.

Judge Denise L. Cote, In re SCOR Holding AG Litig., (October 24, 2007) 04-CV-7897 (S.D. NY):

I should say I have not had a case before, that I remember, at least, in which an issue of the extent to which notice would effectively be made outside this country, and that seems to be the principal point of the affidavit of Mr. Hilsee, which is the first exhibit to the October 12 submission, and I’ve reviewed it. It seems as if it proposes something reasonable in terms of a plan of action to obtain notice that would be consistent with the constitutional requirements of due process so a judgment could be effectively entered in this litigation, including a bar order.

Judge Marina Corodemus, Talalai v. Cooper Tire & Rubber, (Sept. 13, 2002) L-008830.00 (N.J. Super. Ct. Middlesex Co.):

Here, the comprehensive bilingual, English and Spanish, court-approved Notice Plan provided by the terms of the settlement meets due process requirements. The Notice Plan used a variety of methods to reach potential class members. For example, short form notices for print media were place . . . throughout the United States and in major national consumer publications which include the most widely read publications among Cooper Tire owner demographic groups . . . Mr. Hilsee designed the notification plan for the proposed settlement in accordance with this court’s Nov. 1, 2001 Order. Mr. Hilsee is . . . well versed in implementing and analyzing the effectiveness of settlement notice plans.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, In re Parmalat Securities Litig., (March 1, 2007) 04 MD 1653 (LAK), (S.D. N.Y.):

The court approves, as to form and content, the Notice and the Publication Notice, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, and finds that the mailing and distribution of the Notice and the publication of the Publication Notice in the manner and the form set forth in Paragraph 6 of this Order and in the Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as emended by Section 21D(a)(7) of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(7), and due process, and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons and entities entitled thereto.

Judge Richard J. Shroeder, St. John v. Am. Home Products, (Aug. 2, 1999) 97-2-06368-4 (Wash. Super. Ct. Spokane Co.):

[T]he Court considered the oral argument of counsel together with the documents filed herein, including the Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee on Notice Plan . . . The Court finds that plaintiffs’ proposed Notice Plan is appropriate and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances by which to apprise absent class members of the pendency of the above-captioned Class Action and their rights respecting that action.

Judge Robert Wyatt, Gunderson v. F.A. Richard & Associates , (July 19 2007), No. 2004-2417-D, (Cir. Ct. 14th Jud. D. Ct., Calcasieu Par., La.):

The Court will so accept [Mr. Hilsee as an expert] on issues of the content and dissemination of legal notices, including Class Action Notices and notice campaigns. . .

Judge John R. Padova, Rosenberg v. Academy Collection Service, (Dec. 19, 2005) 04-CV-5585 (E.D. Pa.):

[U]pon consideration of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Proposed Class Questionnaire and Certification of Todd Hilsee, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s form of class letter and questionnaire in the form appended hereto is APPROVED. F.R.Civ.P. 23(c).

Judge David De Alba, Ford Explorer Cases, (Aug. 19, 2005) J.C.C.P. 4226 & 4270 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento Co.):

It is ordered that the Notice of Class Action is approved. It is further ordered that the method of notification proposed by Todd B. Hilsee is approved.

Judge Louis J. Farina, Soders v. General Motors, (Oct. 31, 2003) CI-00-04255 (Pa. C.P. Lancaster Co.):

In this instance, Plaintiff has solicited the opinion of a notice expert who has provided the Court with extensive information explaining and supporting the Plaintiff’s notice plan . . . After balancing the factors laid out in Rule 1712(a), I find that Plaintiff’s publication method is the method most reasonably calculated to inform the class members of the pending action.

Judge Eldon E. Fallon, Turner v. Murphy Oil USA, 2007 WL 283431, at *5 (E.D. La.):

Most of the putative class members were displaced following hurricane Katrina . . . With this challenge in mind, the parties prepared a notice plan designed to reach the class members wherever they might reside. The parties retained Todd Hilsee . . . to ensure that adequate notice was given to class members in light of the unique challenges presented in this case.

Judge Ronald B. Leighton, Grays Harbor v. Carrier, (May 29, 2007) 05-05437 (W.D. Wash):

The Court has considered this motion, the Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee on Class Certification Notice Plan and the exhibits attached thereto, and the files and records herein. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Proposed Form of Notice and Notice Plan is appropriate and should be granted.

Judge Richard J. Holwell, In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litig., 2007 WL 1490466, at *34 (S.D.N.Y.):

In response to defendants’ manageability concerns, plaintiffs have filed a comprehensive affidavit outlining the effectiveness of its proposed method of providing notice in foreign countries. (See Affidavit of Todd B. Hilsee on Ability to Provide Multi-National Notice to Class Members, Dec. 19, 2005 (“Hilsee Aff.”) ¶7.) According to this . . . the Court is satisfied that plaintiffs intend to provide individual notice to those class members whose names and addresses are ascertainable, and that plaintiffs’ proposed form of publication notice, while complex, will prove both manageable and the best means practicable of providing notice.

Judge Louis J. Farina, Soders v. General Motors, (Oct. 31, 2003) CI-00-04255 (Pa. C.P. Lancaster Co.):

Plaintiff provided extensive information regarding the reach of their proposed plan. Their notice expert, Todd Hilsee, opined that their plan will reach 84.8% of the class members. Defendant provided the Court with no information regarding the potential reach of their proposed plan . . . There is no doubt that some class members will remain unaware of the litigation, however, on balance, the Plaintiff’s plan is likely to reach as many class members as the Defendant’s plan at less than half the cost. As such, I approve the Plaintiff’s publication based plan.

Judge Paul H. Alvarado, Microsoft I-V Cases, (July 6, 2004) J.C.C.P. 4106 (Cal. Super. Ct.):

The notification plans concerning the pendency of this class action were devised by a recognized class notice expert, Todd B. Hilsee. Mr. Hilsee devised two separate class certification notice plans that were estimated to have reached approximately 80% of California PC owners on each occasion.

Judge Robert E. Payne, Fisher v. Virginia Electric & Power Co., (Feb. 12, 2004) 3:02-CV-431 (E.D. Va.):

The expert, Todd B. Hilsee, is found to be reliable and credible.

Oregon Court of Appeals, Froeber v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins., (September 10, 2008) No. A132263 (Oregon Court of Appeals):

As to the notice issue, defendants introduced the testimony of Hilsee, an expert on notice who helped the parties in this case draft, create, and disseminate the notice. Hilsee testified, among other things, that the format of the notice followed standards set in national model notices, that the content of the notice adequately informed readers of the claims that the settlement released, and that including specific information about the putative Delaware action would have fostered confusion rather than clarity. After counsel for defendants and for objectors presented arguments, the trial court rejected objectors’ notice argument by finding that “the notice is adequate. I feel the testimony by Mr. Hilsee is persuasive. . .” [T]hose conclusions had support in Hilsee’s expert testimony, which–although such expert testimony is not strictly required to support a determination that notice is adequate–lent persuasive support that objectors did not counter or controvert with evidence of their own.

Judge F. Pat VerSteeg, Weber v. Mobil Oil, (March 21, 2011) Case No. CJ-2001-53 (District Court of Custer County, State of Oklahoma):

Based upon testimony of the class notice expert, Todd Hilsee, approximately 40% of the putative class resides outside of the State of Oklahoma. No provision of the notice distribution plan suggests a methodology to reach those absent class members residing outside the State of Oklahoma, or for that matter, outside Dewey and Custer Counties. To be adequate, the notice plan and design must include a methodology whereby the Court can objectively determine the effectiveness of the class members reached. This is measured by a percentage of at least 70% or more. Without a calculation methodology the court has no objective basis from which a notice plan can be evaluated.

Mr. Justice J.R. Henderson, Smith v. Inco, (November 13, 2009) No. 12023/01 (Ontario Super. Ct.):

I also find that Hilsee is qualified to provide an opinion on these Issues. Hilsee has been accepted as an expert witness in many courts in the United States of America as to the design and implementation of notice programs created to notify class members of their rights with respect to class actions. He has also provided prospective and retrospective analyses of such notice programs, both in Canada and the USA. . .Given his education, work experience, and prior court involvement, I accept that Hilsee has an expertise in the fields of comprehension, dissemination, and readability of public documents.

Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal, Orrill v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, (April 21, 2010) No. 2009-CA-0888 (Louisiana 4th Circuit Court of Appeal):

The appellants also presented the testimony of Todd Hilsee, who the court accepted as an expert in communications and notice. . . Appellants’ expert, Todd Hilsee, opined that the notice in this case was woefully inadequate in terms of what a qualified professional would use to actually inform the class of its rights and options. . . It is our opinion that the persons who were suddenly subsumed into Orrill settlement class did not receive adequate notice and were not adequately represented.s (all of which may be found at www.fjc.gov.)