In case you missed it, the BakerHostetler class action defense team published its second annual Year-End Review of Class Actions last month. The 2013 issue was expertly edited by Dustin Dow of our Cleveland office, and features contributions from other members of the firm’s class action defense team across the country. The 54-page report has a thorough recap of the key class action developments in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as other federal and state courts, summaries of key developments in various substantive areas of law in which class actions are prominent, and a preview of what to look for in 2014. Click the link above to download a copy.
Posts Tagged ‘cy pres’
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Trends, tagged 2013 class action, amex III, behrend, CAFA, class action, class action settlement, class certification, comcast, cy pres, daubert, genesis healthcare, italian colors, kiobel, oxford health plans, raskas, standard fire, year in review, year-end review on February 17, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in Articles, Class Action Fairness Act, Commentary, tagged attorney fees, attorneys fees, CAFA, class action settlement, collins, consumer advocate, consumer class action, cy pres, nerdwallet on August 27, 2013 | Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note: The following guest post was authored by Sara Collins, contributor to the consumer finance website, NerdWallet. The views expressed in Sara’s article are her own. Although those of us who tend to represent defendants in consumer class actions may not agree with all of Sara’s views on the benefits of class actions, we can certainly learn something from reading a consumer advocate’s views on the subject. The article also provides an easy-to-follow primer on how class actions work. Many thanks to Sara for her contribution.
Class Actions – Do They Actually Help Consumers?
By Sara Collins
Consumers in the United States are sometimes victims of bad business behavior. These behaviors cover a huge range of bad acts, particularly in the field of securities. Class actions allow consumers to band together and fight against bad business. As such, they have a number of benefits for consumers and are quite helpful in evening the corporation versus consumer playing field.
What are Consumer Class Actions?
A consumer class action is simply a lawsuit which takes place in a federal or state court. The case is brought by one or a small handful of individuals, acting as representatives for a larger group of consumers, known as the class. Typically the case is seeking damages on behalf of the named individuals in addition to the entire class.
Why is a Consumer Class Action Necessary?
Traditionally, class actions are used to combine small-dollar claims for a large number of people. One small claim is generally too small for a cost-effective suit. Consumer class actions offer a helpful alternative, justifying the litigation expenses and immensely improving the consumer’s odds of success, particularly when it comes to larger corporations.
How do Consumer Class Actions Work?
When a class action is first brought, the court initially decides whether it is a proper class action. This is a process known as class certification. The parties then work towards a trial, though settlement negotiations can take place at any point. If the parties decide to settle the case, the court must approve the settlement and then order notice given to class action members.
Do Class Actions Work?
They definitely do. Billions of dollars are given back to the public every year which come from consumer class actions. In most cases, the money is given directly to the victims of the suit, rather than going into the hands of the government, lawyers or other non-consumers.
What Long-Term Effects do Consumer Class Actions Cause?
Class actions help to make bad business practices unprofitable. Class actions aggregate the power of isolated consumers, allowing class actions to compete against corporate behemoths. It levels the playing field, forcing businesses to operate in honest and trustworthy ways. Markets in other countries where class actions are not allowed often suffer from corporate abuses like stock manipulation, insider trading and other problems.
Do Lawyers Benefit Excessively From Consumer Class Actions?
One argument used by businesses to protest the prevalence of consumer class actions is to claim that the lawyers benefit excessively from the cases. In fact, attorney fees in class action cases average just between 20 and 30 percent of the amount recovered. In stark comparison, personal injury lawyers typically reap 35 to 50 percent of their case winnings. Clearly businesses are using false arguments in an attempt to eliminate class actions and thus damages sought against them.
What is the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005?
The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) was enacted by Congress in order to curb abuse of class action suits in state courts. Evidence showed that many class actions were being filed which benefited the counsel, rather than the consumers. Additionally, many cases were filed in courts which showed prejudice against business defendants, a problematic issue.
CAFA was enacted to extend federal jurisdiction to these state courts in order to diminish such abuses. CAFA has had a mild success and while most benefits are for businesses, some benefits are extended to consumers. Primarily, the legislation limits the monetary benefits for the attorneys. This ensures that money won in settlements goes to the members of the class, rather than the plaintiff counsel.
Consumer class actions are needed to ensure the financial safety of consumers, particularly in the realm of securities. Class actions allow consumers to band together, combining resources in order to sue a corporation as a singular entity. In turn, all consumers reap the benefits of the settlement, helping to prevent future bad behavior from the corporation in question. Class actions undoubtedly have a positive effect on the world of consumers and it is vital they stay legal for the foreseeable future.
Sara Collins is a writer for NerdWallet, a personal finance site dedicated to helping consumers learn about new ways to save money.
Posted in Class Action Settlements, Data Privacy Class Actions, tagged Class Action Settlements, cy pres, data privacy, facebook, preliminary approval, privacy, seeborg, settlements, sponsored stories on December 5, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Those of you who enjoyed the recent CAB summary of the presentation on privacy class actions at the ABA’s 16th Annual Class Actions Institute will be interested to know that the re-submitted settlement agreement in Fraley v. Facebook, No. No. C 11-1726 RS (N.D. Cal) was preliminarily approved Monday by Judge Richard Seeborg. Here is a link to a Reuters article by Jessica Dye summarizing the settlement and the court’s decision.
Posted in class action reform, Class Action Settlements, Data Privacy Class Actions, tagged class action, class action settlement, cy pres, data privacy, data privacy class action, dire straits, fee award, final approval, frankel, money for nothing, privacy class action, reuters, wolfman on September 17, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Reuters contributor Alison Frankel authored an insightful column published August 20, 2012 entitled Foretelling the End of Money-for-Nothing Class Actions, that touches on issues similar to those raised by Brian Wolfman in two recent articles summarized in this August 15 CAB post. In her column, Frankel comments on a recent trend, particularly in data privacy class actions, where large fee awards are requested in settlements for which no meaningful relief is provided to class members. Oftentimes, the fee awards are justified by the value of prospective injunctive relief or by the fact of a large cash payment to charity in the form of a cy pres award, but not by any direct benefits to the class members themselves.
Frankel predicts that we have seen the “high point” in what she terms “money-for-nothing” class action settlements, pointing to a growing skepticism among judges who are asked to approve them. While it remains to be seen if this prediction will come true, Frankel’s article, like Wolfman’s articles, should at least give pause to class action attorneys who are willing to sell out a class for personal gain: you may be getting away with this now, but at some point the courts will begin to look beyond the desire to clear their dockets and begin to question the societal value of these settlements.
Posted in Class Action Settlements, tagged atochem, class action, class action settlement, class members, cy pres, elf, escheat, fifth circuit, first circuit, klier, lupron, pro-rata, reversion, settlement fund, unclaimed funds on May 2, 2012 | Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note: The following is a post that I contributed to the Baker Hostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog. Please be sure to visit the firm’s blog for more great class-action related content!
What to do with unclaimed settlement funds is a common problem facing class action litigants. There are at least four methods of distributing unclaimed settlement funds: (1) reversion of unclaimed funds back to the defendant; (2) payment to those claimants who did make claims on a pro rata basis; (3) letting the funds escheat to the state; and (4) a cy pres award to a charitable organization. All of these methods have been the subject of criticism, but the practical reality is that something has to be done with funds from a class action settlement that are not claimed by class members.
Recently, the First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that outlines the circumstances under which a court may approve a cy pres distribution of unclaimed settlement funds. In In re: Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, Case Nos. 10-2494, 11-1329 (1st Cir., Apr. 24, 2012), the parties had agreed to a provision that gave the trial court discretion on the distribution of any unclaimed funds from a settlement of claims alleging overcharging for the medication Lupron. The Court had ordered that $11.4 million in unclaimed funds be distributed to a non-profit cancer center for the purpose of treating diseases for which Lupron was commonly prescribed. Although the First Circuit expressed “unease with federal judges being put in the role of distributing cy pres funds at their discretion,” it found that the trial court had not abused its discretion.
In reaching this decision, the First Circuit adopted the “reasonable approximation” test for evaluating whether a district court’s cy pres award constitutes an abuse of discretion. Under the “reasonable approximation” test, which had previously been applied by the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, the Court looks to whether the cy pres distribution is to a recipient that reasonably approximates the interests being pursued by the members of the class. The Court listed a number of non-exclusive factors to be considered in making this determination:
(1) the purposes underlying statutes claimed to have been violated;
(2) the nature of the injury to the class members;
(3) the characteristics and interests of the class members;
(4) the geographic scope of the class;
(5) the reasons why the settlement funds have gone unclaimed; and
(6) the closeness of the fit between the class and the cy pres recipient.
The opinion more generally has an interesting discussion of some of the policy arguments for and against each potential alternative method of disposing of unclaimed funds. Relying on the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation, the First Circuit rejected the presumption suggested by the concurrence in Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc., 658 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2011), that any residual funds in a class action settlement should be returned to the defendant. The Court also cited the ALI Principles in rejecting escheat to the state as the preferred option of disposing of unclaimed settlement funds. The opinion lists a variety of policy reasons why unclaimed funds should not be given pro-rata to the claimants who do participate, including that this method creates a windfall and leads to perverse incentives to prevent participation in a settlement by absent class members.
Like the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Klier last year, the First Circuit’s decision in In re: Lupron Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation illustrates the need for parties to be specific in the settlement agreement about the means of distributing unclaimed settlement funds. Failure to take care in specifying how unclaimed funds are to be distributed can lead to additional unwanted and expensive litigation with objectors, and can force the court to make a public policy-driven decision that may be inconsistent with the desires of both parties to the settlement.
Close Counts In Horse Shoes, Hand Grenades, and Chronic Halitosis, but Not Class Action Distributions, Says Fifth Circuit
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Trends, Federal Court Decisions, tagged Baker Hostetler, class action settlement, cy pres, elf, fifth circuit, klier, settlement agreement, unclaimed settlement on November 8, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
The Baker Hostetler class action practice team issued a new Executive Alert today authored by Columbus Partner Mark Johnson entitled Fifth Circuit Restricts Cy Pres Doctrine in Class Action Settlements. The alert discusses the Fifth Circuit’s recent decision in Klier v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc., restricting the use of the cy pres doctrine to distribute unclaimed class action settlement funds in the absence of express terms in the settlement agreement.
Posted in Class Action Decisions, Class Action Fairness Act, Federal Court Decisions, tagged amount in controversy, CAFA, chimei, circuit court of appeals, cy pres, easterbrook, federal court of appeals, fifth circuit, fourth circuit, keeling, klier, ninth circuit, parens patriae, punitive damages, remand, removal, seventh circuit on October 4, 2011 | Leave a Comment »
Having been focused on several other speaking and writing projects recently (in addition to my day job), it’s taken longer than I had hoped to comment on several recent class-action-related decisions by the federal circuit courts of appeals. Here’s a brief summary of three recent decisions of note:
Washington State v. Chimei Innolux Corp., No. 11-16862 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011) – joining the Fourth Circuit in holding that a parens patriae action brought by state attorneys general or other state officials for the benefit of the state’s citizens is not a “class action” for the purposes of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., No. 10-20305 (5th Cir., Sept 27, 2011) – holding in the absence of an express provision in the settlement agreement to the contrary that unclaimed funds should be distributed pro rata to class members who participated in the settlement as opposed to being given to charity as a cy pres distribution. Take note of the concurrence by Judge Edith H. Jones, which makes a strong argument that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary or express waiver of the right to recover unclaimed funds, the equities favor returning those funds to the defendant rather than paying them to the class or distributing them to charity.
Esurance Ins. Co. v. Keeling, No. 11-8018 (7th Cir., Sept. 26, 2011) – holding that when punitive damages are at issue, the correct standard is whether it would be “legally impossible” for the plaintiff to recover an amount of punitive damages that, when combined with the amount of compensatory damages sought, would exceed the $5 million amount in controversy threshold under CAFA, but concluding that it was not legally impossible under Illinois law, even though it was unlikely, that $4.4 million in punitive damages could be awarded in a case where the compensatory damages were slightly more than $600,000.
A great resource for more timely commentary and analysis on recent class action decision in the federal courts of appeals is Alison Frankel’s blog On the Case.