Thursday, May 17, 2012

$300 Million Punitive Damages Award Against Iran and Syria for Terrorism Injuries

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has awarded $300 million in punitive damages to plaintiffs bringing tort claims against Syria and Iran in connection with their alleged role in a 2006 suicide bombing attack in Israel; the recovering plaintiffs were all U.S. citizens.  The opinion is noteworthy not only for the size of the punitive-damages award, but also for the opinion's application of the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and the opinion's finding that the organization allegedly responsible for the attack was acting as an agent of Iran and Syria.  The Jurist also has an article on the opinion.

Although executing on such a judgment is likely difficult and sensitive matters of foreign policy may be implicated, the use of tort law (here, the claims included battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress) seems promising as a way to hold foreign states responsible for terrorism.  Indeed, multiple such claims have been litigated recently in the District of Columbia.  Apart from general attempts to execute on assets of the defendants seized abroad, perhaps payment of such claims might be raised by the U.S. Department of State in connection with any future regime change and new government in the defendant countries.

BGS

May 17, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Foreign, Procedure, Punitive Damages, Resources - Federal Agencies | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, April 27, 2012

Introducing... Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation

Stanford has an exciting announcement: the creation of the first scholarly law journal devoted to complex litigation!  Stanford law students interested in complex litigation and mass torts will now have the opportunity not only to study under Stanford's Deborah Hensler, but also to edit the Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation.  

Below is a note from the journal's first editors-in-chief, Nick Landsman-Roos and Matt Woleske.

BGS

***

Re: Announcing the Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation! 

Dear Authors: We are proud to announce the founding of the Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation (SJCL). Beginning in the 2012-2013 academic year, SJCL will publish articles and essays that are timely and make a significant, original contribution to the field of complex litigation. We are currently seeking article and essay manuscripts on a range of topics including the rules of civil procedure, aggregate litigation, mass torts, jurisdictional disputes, complex litigation reform, actions by private attorneys general, and transnational litigation. 

We hope you will consider publishing with SJCL for a few reasons: 

    ·         Specialization: SJCL is the first student-edited journal devoted exclusively to topics relating to complex litigation. Publishing with SJCL will ensure your important contribution will be read within the broader field it is engaging. SJCL will serve as a forum for dialogue on complex litigation issues. We also expect that because SJCL is devoted exclusively to complex litigation, it will quickly become a source of guidance for courts and practitioners.   

·         Expedited publishing: Because we are currently accepting submissions for the first volume of SJCL, we will be able to publish many of the submissions we accept in our fall issue. That means you can expect your article with SJCL to be in print faster than almost any other journal. There will be no need to update through a lengthy editing process. 

·         Modified peer review: SJCL will follow a modified peer-review system. Meaning, after a first-level review by SJCL’s editorial staff, any submission that is a candidate for publication will be submitted to at least one scholar in the field of complex litigation or civil procedure who will review the piece. We will take any unanimous decision from our peer reviewers as a binding decision on publication. This will ensure that SJCL is publishing significant contributions to this field.   

·         “Light edit”: Our editorial policy is to afford substantial deference to authors, in both tone and substance. As a result, all articles must be well written, well cited, and completely argued at the time of submissions. SJCL will only edit to ensure readability and Bluebook compliance, which means that the editing process will be faster but also requires that authors vouch for the accuracy of their citations. 

·         Outreach: We are committed to generating interest in the articles published with SJCL. That is why we will actively promote all scholarship we publish at symposia and on the blogosphere. We are also committing to distributing hundreds of copies of our first issue to grow our readership base. 

·         Volume 1: There is something to be said for publishing in the very first volume of a journal. We hope you appreciate this significance and decide to submit your manuscript to SJCL

We review and accept articles year-round on a rolling basis. SJCL strongly prefers electronic submissions through the ExpressO submission system, which can be found online at http://www.law.bepress.com/expresso. You may also e-mail your manuscript to sjcl_submissions@lists.stanford.edu. We do not accept submissions in hard copy. 

SJCL is also seeking faculty with expertise in areas such as civil procedure or complex litigation to serve as reviewers. If you are interested, please contact sjcl_editors@lists.stanford.edu. 

A website with more information is forthcoming. For the time being please refer to our Stanford Law School site: http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/journals/sjcl/. 

Please contact us with any questions. We look forward to working with you. 

Regards, 

Nick Landsman-Roos & Matt Woleske

Editors-in-Chief, Stanford Journal of Complex Litigation

sjcl_editors@lists.stanford.edu 

April 27, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Cheng on Trial Sampling in Mass Torts

Edward Cheng (Vanderbilt) has posted his paper, "When 10 Trials are Better than 1000: An Evidentiary Perspective on Trial Sampling," on SSRN.  It's also available through Penn's website.  Here's the intro on Penn's website:

In many mass tort cases, individual trials are simply impractical. Take, for example, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, a class action employment discrimination suit that the Supreme Court reviewed last Term. With over 1.5 million women potentially involved in the litigation, the notion of holding individual trials is fanciful. Other recent examples of the phenomenon include the In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation and the fraud litigation against light cigarette manufacturers, in which Judge Weinstein colorfully noted that any “individualized process . . . would have to continue beyond all lives in being.”

Faced with an unserviceable number of plaintiffs, courts have proposed sampling trials: rather than litigating every case, courts would litigate a small subset and award the remaining plaintiffs statistically determined amounts based on the results. But while sampling is standard statistical practice and often accepted as evidence in other legal contexts, appellate courts have balked— based on due process concerns—at the notion of court-mandated, binding trial sampling.

Despite this appellate reluctance, the controversy continues unabated. Trial courts have soldiered on by using nonbinding sampled trials (dubbed “bellwether trials”) to induce settlement, and a few brave appellate courts, including the Ninth Circuit in Dukes, have even hinted at an increased receptivity to sampling. Given that trial courts have few practical alternatives, one wonders if it is just a matter of time before their appellate brethren recognize the necessity of sampling.

And here's the SSRN abstract:

In many mass tort cases, separately trying all individual claims is impractical, and thus a number of trial courts and commentators have explored the use of statistical sampling as a way of efficiently processing claims. Most discussions on the topic, however, implicitly assume that sampling is a “second best” solution: individual trials are preferred for accuracy, and sampling only justified under extraordinary circumstances. This Essay explores whether this assumption is really true. While intuitively one might think that individual trials would be more accurate at estimating liability than extrapolating from a subset of cases, the Essay offers three ways in which the “second best” assumption can be wrong. Under the right conditions, sampling can actually produce more accurate outcomes than individualized adjudication. Specifically, sampling’s advantages in averaging (reducing variability), shrinkage (borrowing strength across cases), and information gathering (through nonrandom sampling), can result in some instances in which ten trials are better than a thousand.

ECB

April 11, 2012 in Class Actions, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure, Trial | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Settlement Reached in BP Litigation

John Schwartz at the New York Times reports that the litigation surrounding the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill has settled for all of the litigants except the federal government.  The Judge overseeing the litigation issued the order late Friday night and will review the settlement. 

Here's the report from Bloomberg as well.

According to these reports, either the settlement will be paid by the $20 billion fund BP created to compensate victims or the fund will close and be replaced by a court overseen claims facility.  In any event, the amount of the settlement is $7.8 billion that from these reports is not in addition to the $20 billion already set aside. 

More to come. ADL

March 3, 2012 in Environmental Torts, Mass Disasters, Procedure, Settlement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Ronald Brand on Access-to-Justice Analysis on a Due Process Platform

Ronald Brand (Pittsburgh) has posted to SSRN his article, Access-to-Justice Analysis on a Due Process PlatformHere is the abstract:

In their article, Forum Non Conveniens and The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Christopher Whytock and Cassandra Burke Robertson provide a wonderful ride through the landscape of the law of both forum non convenience and judgments recognition and enforcement. They explain doctrinal development and current case law clearly and efficiently, in a manner that educates, but does not overburden, the reader. Based upon that explanation, they then provide an analysis of both areas of the law and offer suggestions for change. Those suggestions, they tell us, are necessary to close the “transnational access-to-justice gap” that results from apparent differences between rules applied in a forum non conveniens analysis and rules applied to the question of recognition of foreign judgments. While the analysis is good, it ignores core differences among legal systems, particularly the due process core of U.S. jurisdictional jurisprudence and the “access to justice” approach to jurisdiction, particularly of European civil law systems (from which most other civil law systems draw their origins). This distinction involves a fundamental difference, with U.S. doctrine focusing on the rights of the defendant and the civil law doctrine focusing on the rights of the plaintiff. So long as this difference exists, it will not be possible to wrap the process of declining jurisdiction and the process of recognition of foreign judgments in the same cloak of doctrine in order to provide common or connected analysis.

BGS

February 2, 2012 in Foreign, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Rhonda Wasserman on Secret Class Action Settlements

Professor Rhonda Wasserman (Pittsburgh) has posted to SSRN her article, Secret Class Action Settlements.  Here is the abstract:

This Article analyzes the phenomenon of secret class action settlements. To illustrate the practice, Part I undertakes a case study of a class action lawsuit that recently settled under seal. Part II seeks to ascertain the scope of the practice. Part II.A examines newspaper accounts describing class action settlements from around the country. Part II.B focuses on a single federal judicial district – the Western District of Pennsylvania – and seeks to ascertain the percentage of suits filed as class actions that were settled under seal. Having gained some understanding of the scope of the practice, the Article then seeks to assess it normatively. Part III analyzes the policy debate surrounding secret settlements of civil suits in general, fleshing out the competing policy objectives served by public access to, and confidentiality of, settlement agreements. Finally, Part IV examines the statutory, logistical and policy-based constraints that call into serious question the legality, efficacy and wisdom of secret class action settlements

BGS

February 2, 2012 in Class Actions, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Honda Loses Small Claims Court Suit Over Hybrid Fuel Economy, Raising Questions About Alternatives to Class Actions

As the L.A. Times reports, Honda has lost a case filed in small claims court in California by a Civic hybrid owner who claims her Honda misrepresented the gas mileage possible.  The owner apparently opted out of a proposed class action settlement that might provide $100 and new-car rebate coupons to Civic owners, and pay class counsel $8.5 million in attorneys fees.  Instead, she filed in small claims court and after 3 hours of testimony over two days, she was awarded $9,867.19 in damages.  (In California small claims courts, parties must appear without separate counsel; plaintiff here was an attorney representing herself, though her bar membership is apparently inactive.)  Honda, however, plans to appeal the small claims award to Los Angeles County District Court.  (H/t to my Mass Tort Litigation student Michelle Rosenberg, who sent me the story.)

Might small claims court be a viable alternative to class action litigation?  Class actions of course are most appropriate in so-called negative value claims, where the cost of bringing individual suit exceeds the recovery sought.  Small claims court, with its radically diminished transaction costs (and no attorneys' fees), could be seen to shrink the realm of negative value claims.  And smalls claims court avoids the potential conflict of interest arising from the temptation for class counsel to settle class claims for a less than optimal amount, in pursuit of a hefty, sure, and speedy class counsel fee.  Small claims court still wouldn't be worth the trouble of people who think they were defrauded only a dollar or two, but it might be a viable alternative if hundreds of dollars per claimant were at stake.

BGS  

February 2, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Daniel Klerman on Personal Jurisdiction and Products Liability

Daniel Klerman (USC) has posted to SSRN his article, Personal Jurisdiction and Products Liability: An Economic Analysis.  Here is the abstract:

This article is the first sustained economic analysis of personal jurisdiction. It argues that plaintiffs should be able to sue where they purchased a product which caused injury. Such a rule allows manufacturers to set prices which take into account the quality of the forum state’s courts. If the courts are biased against out-of-state corporations, have overly generous judges or juries, or apply substantive law which is excessively pro-consumer, manufacturers can, through contracts with distributors and retailers, charge a higher price to consumers in that state. This prevents judges and juries from engaging in inter-state redistribution and gives states an incentive to provide efficient substantive rules and adjudicative institutions. In contrast, a rule which required suit in a place more fully under the control of the defendant – such as the place of manufacture or the location of the distributor – would encourage manufacturers to select inefficiently pro-defendant jurisdictions for their activities. Because consumers are unlikely to know where products are manufactured or distributed and are unlikely to be able to evaluate the quality of the law in those states, it is implausible to think that the market will give manufacturers incentives to locate their jurisdiction-triggering activities in states with efficient laws and institutions. This analysis is particularly important, because the Supreme Court has recently deadlocked on personal jurisdiction in product liability cases.

BGS 

January 31, 2012 in Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure, Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 30, 2012

More on the Second Circuit's Refusal to Block Enforcement of Ecuadoran Judgment

Sunday, January 29, 2012

PIP Breast Implants and Mass Torts in Europe

According to this article from CNN, French authorities have arrested Jean-Claude Mas, the founder of Poly Implant Protheses (PIP), in connection with alleged manslaughter and involuntary harm to a woman who died from cancer and had PIP breast implants.  The article notes that 300,000 women in 65 countries received PIP breast implants, and that questions have been raised about the use of non-medical-grade silicon and PIP went bankrupt in late 2010.  

The PIP breast-implants controversy may present an opportunity to observe non-U.S.-style mechanisms for what here would likely have been a mass tort litigation.  Since the PIP breast implants were not permitted to be sold in the U.S., litigation may be concentrated abroad.  In general, my sense is that the European approach is more reliant on criminal law than tort for deterrence, compensatory damages are limited because of the comparatively extensive governmental social insurance, punitive damages are unavailable, and class actions are traditionally not embraced (though class actions appear to be on the rise globally -- see, e.g., the Stanford Global Class Actions Exchange).

Interestingly, according to the article, one French woman who received PIP breast implants said, "Too bad we do not have a justice system like they do in the United States which allows the accumulation of penalties...because the small punishment he will receive for what he did to 300,000 to 400,000 women, is not much compared to what we have suffered because of him."

(H/t to my Mass Tort Litigation student Abigail Anderson for sending me the CNN story.)

BGS

January 29, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, FDA, Foreign, Procedure, Products Liability | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Martin Redish on Pleading, Discovery, and the Federal Rules

Professor Martin Redish (Northwestern) has an article, Pleading, Discovery, and the Federal Rules: Exploring the Foundations of Modern Procedure, in the January 2012 issue of the Federalist Society's Engage.

BGS

January 22, 2012 in Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, January 20, 2012

California Lawsuit Reform and the Need for Court Funding

Tom Scott, the Executive Director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, has posted on Fox&Hounds a 2012 wishlist for legal reform.  While there are many proposed reforms helpful to business, I was struck by one not usually associated with business desires or law reform:

6. Stop cutting the funding of the California courts. Our court system is still reeling from cuts last year, and more cuts would only reduce access to the courts even more.

I am heartened to see that even those who are "fighting against lawsuit abuse" understand that adequate court funding is essential if suits are to be promptly adjudicated -- and found either meritorious and tried, or found unmeritorious and dismissed.  Both pro-plaintiff and pro-business groups should be able to come together to advocate for court funding in a time of shrinking governmental budgets.  And those who practice in mass tort litigation should be especially vocal, in light of the heavy demands such litigation places on state and federal courts.  Moreover, as the election season approaches and disagreements multiply across the political spectrum, liberals and conservatives might remind themselves that they agree on government's core responsibility in providing a functioning court system for dispute resolution.

BGS 

January 20, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Current Affairs, Procedure, Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 16, 2012

Southwestern Law School Symposium on Transnational Litigation and Civil Procedure

Below is the announcement from Southwestern Law School, and here is the brochure.

BGS

***

SW_Law_Our Courts and The World Symposium

Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Civil Procedure
Southwestern Law School
February, 3, 2012
 
On Friday, February 3, 2012, Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, California and the Southwestern Journal of International Law are hosting a symposium entitled, Our Courts and the World: Transnational Litigation and Civil Procedure.   The symposium is co-sponsored by the American Society of International Law, the Junior International Law Scholars Association (JILSA), the Los Angeles County Bar Association -  International Law Section, and the State Bar of California - International Law Section.
 
This one-day symposium will bring together leading scholars from Canada and the United States to discuss the procedural issues that arise in transnational civil litigation cases. It will also assess how receptive courts are to transnational litigation and explore issues related to transnational class actions. The proceedings and papers from this symposium will be published in the Southwestern Journal of International Law.
 
What:
Southwestern Journal of International Law presents
When:
Friday, February 3, 2012, 9:00 a.m. – 5:15 p.m.
Where:
Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, California
 
Panelists include (in alphabetical order):
·          Samuel P. Baumgartner, Professor of Law, University of Akron School of Law
·           Vaughan Black, Professor of Law, Dalhousie University Schulich School of Law
·           Gary B. Born, Partner, WilmerHale, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School
·           Stephen B. Burbank, David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice, University of Pennsylvania Law School
·           Montré D. Carodine, Associate Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law
·           Donald Earl Childress III, Associate Professor of Law, Pepperdine University School of Law
·           Paul R. Dubinsky, Associate Professor of Law, Wayne State University Law School
·           Allan Ides, Christopher N. May Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
·           Thomas Orin Main, Professor of Law, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law
·           Erin O’Hara O’Connor, Professor of Law and Director of Graduate Studies, Law & Economics PhD Program, Vanderbilt Law School
·           Cassandra Burke Robertson, Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
·           Linda J. Silberman, Martin Lipton Professor of Law, New York University School of Law
·           Linda Sandstrom Simard, Professor of Law, Suffolk University Law School
·           Adam N. Steinman, Professor of Law and Michael J. Zimmer Fellow, Seton Hall University School of Law
·           Janet Walker, Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School      
·           Rhonda Wasserman, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law
                                                                                               
Moderators include:
·           William E. Thomson, Partners, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
·           James H. Broderick, Jr., Partner, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP
·           Marcus S. Quintanilla, Counsel, O’Melveny & Myers LLP
·           Ray D. Weston Jr., Vice President and General Counsel, Taco Bell Corp.
 
Symposium Co-Chairs:
  • Austen Parrish, Professor of Law and Vice Dean, Southwestern Law School
  • Christopher A. Whytock, Acting Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California, Irvine

 

January 16, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Conferences, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Saturday, January 14, 2012

BP, the Gulf Coast Claims Fund, and MDL Plaintiffs' Lawyers

All that in the recent interesting op-ed from New York Times business columnist Joe Nocera -- BP Makes Amends.

BGS

January 14, 2012 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Environmental Torts, Informal Aggregation, Lawyers, Mass Disasters, Procedure, Punitive Damages, Settlement | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Tort Reform in The Economist

The Economist this week has an article discussing various approaches to American tort reform, including loser pays and damage caps.

BGS 

December 20, 2011 in Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Fifth Annual Conference on the Globalization of Class Actions and Mass Litigation at The Hague

The Fifth Annual Conference on the Globalization of Class Actions and Mass Litigation is being hosted by Tilburg University and will be held on December 8-9, 2011 in The Hague, Netherlands.  The conference is being organized by Professors Deborah Hensler (Stanford Law School), Christopher Hodges (Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and Erasmus University), and Ianika Tzankova (Tilburg University).  Master claim administrator Kenneth Feinberg is delivering the keynote speech.

BGS  

November 27, 2011 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Class Actions, Conferences, Ethics, Informal Aggregation, Lawyers, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 31, 2011

Ted Frank Profile in the Wall Street Journal

In today's Wall Street Journal, There's a profile of Ted Frank of the Center for Class Action Fairness.  The WSJ Law Blog also has a companion post on him today.  Ted Frank has been toiling for years on class actions, as well as law reform generally in his previous position at the American Enterprise Instititue. Today's recognition is well deserved.

For one indication of his devotion to class-action reform, check out Ted Frank's license plate.

BGS

October 31, 2011 in Class Actions, Lawyers, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 10, 2011

Morris Ratner on A New Model of Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys

Morris Ratner (Harvard) has posted to SSRN his article, A New Model of Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys, Rev. Litig. (forthcoming).  The article presents a nuanced, updated portrait of plaintiffs' class action firms today that challenges prior conceptions of class-counsel bias.  Here's the abstract:

This Article offers a new model for conceptualizing plaintiffs’ class action attorneys, and thus for understanding principal-agent problems in class action litigation. It responds to the work of Professor John C. Coffee, Jr., who, in a series of influential articles, demonstrated that principal-agent problems may be acute in class action litigation because class members lack the information or financial incentive to monitor class counsel; class counsel is thus free to pursue his own interests at the expense of the class members. But what are those interests, and how do they diverge from the class members’ interests? Professor Coffee provided one answer to this sub-set of questions, presenting a conventional account of class counsel and the precise parameters of his disloyalty corresponding with three descriptive assertions: that class counsel is either a solo practitioner or in a small firm; that he is predominantly interested in maximizing his law firm profit; and he capably pursues his fee-maximizing goal by investing his time in cases based on confident predictions about expected fees. In this Article, I articulate an updated and competing conception of the dominant class action attorneys and firms: the leading firms today are relatively large and internally complex; law firm structural complexity creates diverse incentives other than maximization of law firm profit; and class counsel invest time in cases for complex reasons other than the effect on expected fees, particularly because fees are notoriously difficult to predict. Modeling class counsel to recognize this complexity has three virtues: it better reflects the actual characteristics of the most significant class action attorneys, and hence is a more accurate descriptive tool; as such, it enables a more precise understanding of the extent and nature of agency or loyalty problems; and thus, finally, it provides a more solid basis for reforms. In particular, this new model sheds insight on the importance of direct versus incentive-based regulation to manage agency costs in class actions. In light of the diverse incentives this new model reveals, direct regulation of outcomes by trial courts using enhanced final approval standards should be a central part of any package of reforms to manage agency costs in class litigation.

BGS

October 10, 2011 in Class Actions, Ethics, Lawyers, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, August 29, 2011

Grabill on Judicial Review of Private Mass Tort Settlements

Jeremy Grabill (Weill, Gotshall) has posted to SSRN his article, Judicial Review of Private Mass Tort Settlements, which is forthcoming in the Seton Hall Law Review.  Here's the abstract:

In the mass tort context, class action settlements have largely given way to a unique form of non-class aggregate settlements that this Article refers to as “private mass tort settlements.” Although it has been argued that aggregation in tort law is “inevitable,” the legal profession has struggled for many years to find an effective aggregate settlement mechanism for mass tort litigation that does not run afoul of the “historic tradition” that everyone should have their own day in court, assuming they want it. Over the last decade, however, as a result of the evolution of non-class aggregate settlements, a new opt-in paradigm for mass tort settlements has emerged that is true to that historic tradition. This Article discusses the new opt-in paradigm and the appropriate contours of judicial authority vis-à-vis private mass tort settlements.

Private mass tort settlements present a difficult conundrum for presiding judges. On one hand, mass tort litigation requires active judicial involvement and oversight due to the sheer size and complexity of such matters. Thus, having been intimately involved in the litigation from its inception, it understandably seems natural for courts to want to exercise some degree of control over private mass tort settlements. But, on the other hand, like traditional one-on-one settlements and unlike class action settlements and other specific settlements, private mass tort settlements do not impact the rights of absent or unrepresented parties. Perhaps not surprisingly then, courts have struggled in applying established principles concerning the scope of judicial authority to evaluate and oversee the implementation of traditional settlements in the unfamiliar context of private mass tort settlements. 

This Article seeks to provide a clear path forward by first examining the limited contexts in which courts have the authority to evaluate and oversee the implementation of traditional settlements, highlighting the nature of the absent or unrepresented interests that judicial review is designed to protect in those traditional contexts. The Article then discusses the emerging opt-in paradigm for mass tort settlements and traces the paradigm’s lineage to three recent cases: In re Baycol Products Liability Litigation, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation, and In re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigation. The Article argues that the well-established maxim that courts lack authority over private one-on-one settlements should apply with equal force to private mass tort settlements because these non-class aggregate settlements allow each individual plaintiff to decide whether or not to settle on the terms offered and do not impact the rights of absent or unrepresented parties. In short, courts do not have - and do not need - the authority to review private mass tort settlements. The Article concludes by addressing the arguments that have been advanced to support judicial review of non-class aggregate settlements, debunking the “quasi-class action” theory that some courts have relied upon to regulate attorneys’ fees in connection with mass tort settlements, and discussing the various ways in which courts may nevertheless be able to influence private mass tort settlements.

BGS

August 29, 2011 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Informal Aggregation, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, August 25, 2011

RAND Reports on Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts and Tort Compensation

RAND's Institute for Civil Justice last week released its report, Asbestos Bankruptcy Trusts and Tort Compensation, by Lloyd Dixon and Geoffrey McGovern.  Here's the summary:

Payments by asbestos bankruptcy trusts have played an increasingly important role in compensating asbestos injuries and have become a matter of contention between plaintiff and defense attorneys. At issue is how tort cases take into consideration compensation paid by trusts and the evidence submitted in trust claim forms. This monograph examines how such evidence and compensation are addressed by state laws and considered during court proceedings. It also examines how the establishment of the trusts potentially affects plaintiff compensation from trusts and the tort system combined, payments by defendants that remain solvent, and the compensation available to future, as compared to current, plaintiffs. The authors find that the potential effects of trusts' replacement of once-solvent defendants are very different in states with joint-and-several liability than in states with several liability. In states with joint-and-several liability, total plaintiff compensation should not change. In several-liability states, the replacement of once-solvent defendants by trusts can cause total plaintiff compensation to increase, decrease, or remain unchanged. The findings underscore the importance of information on plaintiff exposure to the products and practices of the bankrupt firms in determining the trusts' effects on plaintiff compensation and on payments by defendants that remain solvent. 

RAND also published the shorter Research Brief, Bankruptcy Trusts, Asbestos Compensation, and the Courts, by the same authors.  

BGS

August 25, 2011 in Aggregate Litigation Procedures, Asbestos, Ethics, Lawyers, Mass Tort Scholarship, Procedure, Products Liability, Settlement | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)