Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for August 28th, 2008

The Latest on Class Arbitration Waivers

Posted in Class Action Trends, washington class action law, tagged , , , on August 28, 2008| 2 Comments »

Although courts have upheld class arbitration waivers–contract clauses requiring arbitration but prohibiting class treatment of claims in the arbitration–under some circumstances, the trend seems to favor striking them down as unconscionable or void as against public policy, especially in consumer contracts where any individual dispute is likely to involve only small amounts of money.  The latest decision supporting that trend came today from the Supreme Court of Washington.  The opinion is the second from the Washington high court holding a class arbitration waiver provision invalid.

Read Full Post »

UK’s Civil Justice Council Recommends US-Style Procedures for Collective Actions

Posted in Class Action Legislation, Class Action News, Class Action Trends, International Class Action Law, Reports and Surveys, tagged , , , , , , , , on August 28, 2008| 1 Comment »

As reported today in the UK trade publication Professional Pensions, the Civil Justice Council, a governmental advisory committee charged with studying and recommending policy decisions relating to civil justice issues, issued a report earlier this month recommending that enhanced collective action procedures be adopted in the British civil courts.  The procedures, if adopted, would include many of the features of class actions in the United States.  Many of the recommendations are similar to those recently recommended by an advisory group in the Australian state of Victoria.

Here is a summary of the panel’s recommendations:

1) Introduction of a generic collective action procedure;

2) Procedures to allow a wider range of representatives to bring collective actions, ranging from individuals to “ad hoc bodies”;

3) Permitting both opt-in and opt-out actions, with tolling procedures to apply during the pendency of an opt-out action;

4) Strict certification requirements;

5) Enhanced case management of collective actions by specialized judges;

6) Permitting awards of aggregate damages in opt-out actions, which would involve changes to both procedural and substantive law;

7) Requirement that the court conduct a fairness hearing to evaluate the fairness of a collective action settlement to absent parties;

8) “Full” cost-shifting;

9) Cy pres awards allowing unclaimed funds to be distributed to a foundation or trust;

10) Recommendation that the changes be introduced by legislation as opposed to by changes to the civil rules.

Read Full Post »