Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘res judicata’

This is the second of what will be six posts summarizing my notes of the six presentations at the ABA’s 16th Annual Class Actions Institute held last month in Chicago.  For more on this excellent conference, see this October 31, 2012 CAB Post.

Session 2 addressed a topic of great relevance to all class action practitioners, regardless of the subject matter area of practice.  It was entitled “The Class Definition That Works . . . or Does It?” Strategies for Pleading and Attacking Class Definitions;  The Most Basic and Most Ignored Step in a Class-Action Lawsuits Success or Failure.  The panel of academics, judges and practitioners discussed recent developments in the state and federal courts regarding the requirements for a class definition.  They also discussed practical tips for plaintiffs in articulating a class definition that will withstand attack at the class certification stage, and practical tips for defendants in defeating class certification by attacking the plaintiff’s choice of class definition.  Program Chair Daniel R. Karon moderated the panel discussion, which consisted of The Honorable James G. Carr, Bart D. Cohen, Donald Frederico, Professor Dean Robert Klonoff, Sabrina H. Strong, and Ranae D. Steiner. 

Here are some highlights of the pointers made by the panel during the presentation:

  • Many courts have accepted several additional elements as implicit under Rule 23 and similar state rules of civil procedure, including that the class definition be sufficiently clear and narrow so that the class is ascertainable and not overly broad.  These requirements are implied in order to ensure 1) that the class can be identified from a practical perspective; 2) that the defendant has notice of the claims being made against it and by whom those claims are being made; and 3) that the court can manage the litigation.
  • These issues can also be expressed through the other, express Rule 23 elements.  For example, if a class is not ascertainable, then there is no basis to conclude that numerosity is present.  Similarly, an inability to distinguish class members who have a claim from those who do not should lead the court to conclude that common issues do not predominate.
  • Many trial judges would prefer to consider issues relating to the class definition in terms of the express Rule 23 elements rather than by accepting addition, implicit requirements.
  • Rather than declining to certify altogether, courts are often willing to work with plaintiffs’ counsel to try to come up with alternative class definitions that resolve problems associated with a class as originally proposed.
  • Because most judges are not dealing with these types of issues on a daily basis, the involvement of counsel on both sides is essential to the judge’s well-reasoned evaluation of the potential legal and practical problems with the proposed class definition and whether those problems can be remedied without violating the rights of the defendant or absent class members or overburdening the court.

The panel grouped issues relating to class definitions into various categories.  The panel discussed each of these categories in reference to an example case.  In many instances, the categories overlap, and the example cases often illustrated more than one of the categories.  I have listed below, for each category, the key problems, the example case(s) discussed by the panel, and my notes on insights offered by panelists:

Lack of objective criteria for class membership

Issue – Membership in the class depends on criteria that cannot be established without looking at each class member individually.

Example –  Solo v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., MDL No. 1785, 2009 WL 4287706 (D.S.C. Sept. 25, 2009):  In class action seeking compensation for the lost value of tainted contact lens solution that purchasers were encouraged to dump out as part of a product recall, class defined as consisting of all purchasers who “lack[ed] full reimbursement” for the value of the solution purchased.

Notes – fixes proposed by panel members included 1) Expand definition to remove individualized issues, e.g. “all who purchased”, but this could create overbreadth problems; 2) create subclasses based on date of purchase, and estimate likely amount of consumption for members in each subclass.

Vagueness

Issue – The class definition is too vague and indefinite to determine who is in the class.

Example – Heisler v. Maxtor Corp., No. 5:06-cv-06634, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125745 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2010): Class defined as anyone who experienced a hard drive “failure.”  The problem was determining what constituted a “failure” and limiting that phrase to failures caused by the alleged product defect. 

Notes – The Maxtor case provides an example of a decision where the court preferred to characterize the issues in relation to the express Rule 23 requirements.  The case also illustrates a common problem in cases where causation may be an issue.  By trying to limit class membership to only those individuals who suffered harm, the plaintiffs created a vagueness problem.

Failsafe Class

Issue – Class definition includes only those individuals who will ultimately prove their claims on the merits, so that class membership is not determined until a decision on the merits occurs.  The main problem with failsafe class is that it puts the defendant in a lose-lose situation.  Either the class wins at trial, binding the defendant to a classwide judgment, or the defendant prevails but gets no preclusive effect against absent class members.

ExampleNudell v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 2002 WL 1543725 (D.N.D. 2002): The court denied certification after determining that class membership hinged on class members’ ability to prove all of the factual issues that would prove their claims on the merits, including that they owned land abutting a railroad easement, that they did not give consent to the placement of utility cables on the easement, and so on. 

Notes – The problem in Nudell may have been due to a failure to develop the record sufficiently to convince the court that class membership could be determined based on objective criteria.  This is an example of a case where problems with the class definition could be remedied.  The case ultimately settled on a classwide basis after the class was re-defined.

Overbreadth

Problem – Class includes members who did not suffer injury or who have no legal right to recover.

ExamplesSanders v. Apple Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009): In action for deceptive advertising, class definition included all persons who “own” a 20-inch iMac.  The court found this definition overly broad because it included individuals who didn’t purchase the product and those who weren’t deceived by the advertising.  Anderson v. United Fin. Sys. Corp., 281 F.R.D. 292 (N.D. Ohio 2012): Class was found to be overly broad because it included class members whose claims were time-barred and who had no private right of action.

Notes – In some cases, overbreadth can be cured simply by narrowing the class definition.  On others, however, overbreadth is a symptom of predominance issues that may be difficult to remedy.

Class Definitions in Class Action Settlements

The panel also discussed issues in class definition within the settlement context.  As is true with other threshold requirements, the courts are generally more lenient about class definitions in the settlement context than they are in the litigation context, in large part because manageability concerns are lessened when otherwise contested issues do not have to be resolved.  An example is the DeBeers diamond settlement, Sullivan v. D.B. Invs., Inc., 667 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2011), where the Third Circuit affirmed certification of a settlement class over objections claiming that some of the class members would not have had a private right of action due to variations in state law.  Whether the inclusion of class members whose claims are barred or significantly weaker than other class members should be a bar to certification of a settlement class probably depends on whether other class members will suffer as a result.  If it’s simply a matter of the defendant agreeing to waive defenses as to a portion of the class, then courts are more likely to overlook variations in the strengths and weaknesses of individual class members’ claims.

Read Full Post »

Editor’s Note: Many thanks to Larissa Clare Pochmann da Silva, complex litigation professor at Cândido Mendes University in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, who graciously agreed to provide this valuable update on collective and mass action reforms being considered in Brazil. Not all of the reforms discussed in her article are expected to become law in the immediate future. However, they represent unique and creative potential approaches to common problems in collective redress, which should be of interest to anyone who follows trends in representative and multi-party litigation.

Recent Developments in Collective Process and Mechanisms for Solving Collective Conflicts in Brazil

By Larissa Clare Pochmann da Silva

Class Actions

Collective actions in Brazil are not new. The first legislative enactment occurred with the 1934 Constitution, which provided, in art. 113, no. 38, the popular action. From 1934 until today, the collective procedural law has had, in its history, advances and retreats. The most important laws before 1988 were law 4.717/65, about the popular action, and law 7.347/85, about class actions. The 1988 Constitution increased protection of collective rights in a broad sense the constitutional level. Later, in 2009, Law n. 12.016/2009, repealing previous legislation (Law n. 1533), was enacted to regulate the collective writ of mandamus.

Today, the mechanisms used for collective protection are the popular action, class actions and collective writ of mandamus. Each one has its own mechanisms; however there are several general rules applicable to all of them, and they are discussed generally below.

The collective process aims to protect diffuse, collective and homogeneous rights, all of which have explicit definition in the art. 81 of the Consumer Protection Code:

Article 81 – The defense of the interests and rights of consumers and victims can be exercised either individually or collectively.

§ – Collective defense will be exercised when dealing with:

I – diffuse rights or interests, so understood, for the purposes of this Code, the trans, of indivisible nature, they hold people indeterminate and linked by factual circumstances;

II – collective interests or rights, so understood, for the purposes of this Code, the indivisible nature of trans holds that group, category or class of persons linked to the opposing party or by a legal relationship-based;

III – homogeneous interests or rights, herein defined as arising from a common origin.

Unlike the United States and other common law countries, Brazil doesn’t have a certification process for class actions.

Key Current Issues

Two concepts that today represent the greatest difficulties of the collective process in Brazil are standing and res judicata, but res judicata, since 2011, has become a less controversial issue than standing.

Standing, in the words of Professor Barbosa Moreira, is eclectic. Who has standing? This would be the public sector, associations and individual. Individuals only have standing to propose a popular action. Political parties with representation in Congress, union organization and associations legally established and in operation for at least a year, in the interests of its members or associates (art. 5, LXX of the Federal Constitution), have standing for collective writ. The Public Prosecutor; the Public Defender; Union, states, the Federal District and municipalities; the local authority; public corporation; foundation or mixed capital company and associations, which have existed since at least one year (requirement can be waived by the judge in this case, since the social relevance of observed) and has relevance to the topic, have standing for class actions.

There has been much discussion in recent years about the standing of the public prosecutor to pursue legal action for the protection of homogeneous individual rights. The view that predominates today is the importance of verifying whether the homogenous individual interests identified by the public prosecutor have the essential magnitude capable of characterizing a genuine social interest. If so, the Public Prosecutor will have standing for filing the lawsuit.

However, the issue is still in debate. In the Extraordinary Appeal No. 605,533, the Supreme Court of Brazil (STF) accepted review to decide whether prosecutors have standing to propose measures to protect legal rights related to delivery of medicines to patients with serious illnesses. Depending on the STF’s decision, the case may either be an important development in the history of collective protection or represent a phase of retrocession in the protection of rights.

The standing of the Public Defender is also being debated. The Public Defender’s standing in the legal system generally is governed by Law No. 11.448/2007. The role of the Public Defender in collective protection, however, is pending of decision by the Supreme Court, which must rule on that issue in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality No. 3943-1. Another question is whether standing of the Public Defender is restricted to cases when the group involves persons who are unable to pay a lawyer to protect their own interests or if the Public Defender can act in every case that involves transindividual interests. The prevailing view is that Public Defender cannot act unless the group involves persons who are unable to pay a lawyer to protect their own interests.

The effects of res judicata are specified in art. 103 of the CDC, the systematic secundum eventus litis. In general, the res judicata effect of a sentence (judgment) is formed erga omnes, in the case of diffuse rights, ultra parts, limited to a group, category or class, in the case of collective rights, and erga omnes in the case of individual homogeneous rights to benefit all victims. The exception is when the claim is dismissed for lack of evidence, in which case any legitimate claimant may bring another action with the same basis drawing on new evidence.

Proposed Reforms

Article 16 of the Class Action Law places territorial limits on the effects of res judicata. However, in October 2011, the Special Court of the Superior Court, in Recurso Especial No. 1,243,887, ruled in that “… the effects and effectiveness of the judgment are not confined to geographic limits, but the objective and subjective limits of what was decided.” (STJ. Recurso Especial nº 1.243.887/PR. Corte Especial. Rel. Min. Luis Felipe Salomão. DJ 19/10/2011).

One of the challenges in analyzing the collective process in Brazil is the difficulty of finding accurate data and national level on the collective process. The National Register for Class Actions and for Class Action Investigation, proposed by Resolution No. 2, June 21, 2011, and originally expected to be in force beginning December 2011, so far not been implemented. It is estimated that the National Register will finally enter into force in the second half of this year.

Nowadays, each court has its own system of search, which provides the data processing procedures in the court determined that the search engines have different search parameters, i.e., some courts make the details of the processes by name only the defendant, others only provide process data by reporter, other process per year, which makes an overview of information difficult in national terms.

There are bills to bring improvements to the collective protection, but it’s still hard to think that the changes will occur anytime soon.

A bill for a new law on class actions and the proposed legislative amendment to the Code of Consumer Protection, Draft Law No. 5.139/09, aims to replace Law No. 7.347/85. The Draft Law has had a long course and numerous changes in its text. In general, the project aimed, among other modifications, (a) to substantially reduce judicial activism, restoring the prevalence of the initiative of the parties, (b) to adopt the principle of dynamic evidentiary burden by assigning the responsibility of proving a fact to the party better able to accomplish it, and (c) to emphasize the public prosecutor’s power to conduct a civil investigation preliminary to the class action.

The project also provided for the creation of the Register of Class Actions, mentioned above, and would confer standing to the public prosecutor without any restriction on the defense of individual homogeneous rights, which today is still a controversial point in the collective process of Brazil.

The project sought to clearly express the role of associative entities. Art. 6 would convey standing to the Brazilian Bar Association (including its sections only–subsections were removed from the legal text for a suggested amendment), unions, and associates formed for the purpose of monitoring the exercise of professions (restricted by the interests linked to their category), the political parties with representation in Congress, in the Legislative Assemblies or Municipal Chambers, and civil associations and foundations under private law legally constituted for at least one year, for the defense of rights related to their institutional objectives. According the art. 6 § 1, the requirement that civil associations and foundations must have been constituted for at least may be waived at the judge’s discretion with consent of the committee and the submission of nominal roll of members.

On March 17, 2010, the draft resolution was rejected by the Constitution and Justice Commission of the Chamber of Congressman in a vote by a majority of 17 votes to 14, the ground of lack of debate and public discussion. On March 23, 2010, members of the committee of lawyers responsible for drafting the project appealed against the dismissal. A new opinion in favor of approving the project was issued on April 27, 2010. However, a few days later, the project was declared suspended unless another appeal should be filed. A second appeal was filed later that year.

No decision has been made on the appeal, and so it remains uncertain whether the bill will be transformed into law, which would represent another major step for Brazilian collective protection, or be permanently archived, burying important ideas for themselves the effectiveness of collective protection.

In 2011, there was a proposal to amend the Consumer’s Protection Code, the project PLS 282/12. The proposal does away with one of these controversial points regarding standing, dismissing any discussion on the standing of the prosecutor to the defense of individual rights homogeneous, stating that these rights, by their nature, already have social relevance. The project also dismisses the discussion about the Public Defender: the Public Defenders can act in all the cases of transindividual rights, not only when there is a group that couldn’t pay for a lawyer. Another proposal would widen participation in public actions through the filing of amicus curiae submissions. However, there is, so far, no indication on the adoption of these proposals.

Thus, despite the existence of bills to improve the previsions on collective protection, there aren`t prospects for approval soon. The only reform that is likely to occur this year is the implementation of the National Register for Class Actions and for Class Action Investigation. On the other hand, as we will explain, the mass torts are to gain a new instrument in the near future.

Mass Torts

A mechanism known today in conflict resolution for mass torts in the country is the so called recurso repetitivo (repetitive appeals). It has existed in the law since 2008, when Law No. 11,672 included items 543-543-B and C of the Code of Civil Procedure. The amendment states that when there are multiple claims requiring resolution of an identical point of law, the President of the court of origin may admit one or more representative features of the dispute and refer them to the Supreme Court (543-B of the Civil Procedure Code) or to the STJ ( 543-C of the Civil Procedure Code). The other cases are to be suspended until the final pronouncement of the Court in the representative appeal. The grouping of recursos repetitivos will take in consideration only the essential issue in discussion whenever resolution of that issue can reduce the analysis of other issues in the same plea.

The Court justice in charge of reporting the case may request information, which must be provided within 15 days to state or federal courts concerning the dispute. After receiving the information, and after the demonstration of third parties, if appropriate, the case will be referred to the Public Prosecutor will for a period of 15 days. After the deadline for Public Prosecutors, the process will be placed on the agenda of the section or the Special Court, which must be judged with preference over other cases, except criminal cases and requests by accused of habeas corpus.

After a final decision, the judgment is to be published. Any identical issues in the stayed cases are to be decided based on the judgment of the Superior Court, and any unique issues remaining in the other cases pending in the court of will be re-examined by the Court of origin in the case.

Another procedure to resolve claims massed, but in the court of first instance, is a “preliminary ruling”. When the matter at issue is solely of law and judgment has already been pronounced in other similar cases, the judge can enter the same ruling in the case without notifying the defendant. In spite of the criticisms on this provision, it is important to note that it only applies to issues of law.

There are other legal instruments that aim to reach the speed of the procedure in mass tort cases, but one in particular worth mentioning is an instrument that it likely to join the legal system very soon, when it approved the Project for the New Civil Procedure Code.

Proposed Reform: Incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas

The design of the new Civil Procedure Code was presented to the Senate President on August 6, 2010 and as of July 2012, after passing the Senate, already proceeding through the house, was in the process of public hearings. One of its innovations is the incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas (incident for solving repetitive pleas, or “Incident”), inspired by the second version of the German Musterverfahren, but with many peculiarities.

The mechanism is found under Chapter VII of Project of the New Civil Procedure Code, Articles 930 to 941, in the title “Of Processes in the Courts,” which is not just about appeal, but all the processes that proceed through the courts. It exemplifies one of the concerns of the project: a uniform jurisprudence of the courts, trying to avoid conflicting decisions.

The Incident will take place in case of dispute that may generate significant multiplication of processes based on an identical question of law and cause serious legal uncertainty due to the risk of conflicting decisions. The mechanism will only work for identical issues of law not being applied to questions of fact. One of the practical challenges in implementing the new rule will be the difficulty of decoupling the issues of law of the facts. In fact, law and fact are associated, and it is often difficult in practice to make a clear distinction between the two.

The parties with standing to raise the new Incident procedure, which can be done ex officio by the court, are the parties and the public prosecutor, through simple petition, although the prosecutor must intervene to do so. Incidents raised will be recorded in the National Council of Justice.

The judge to whom the Incident is raised (the rapporteur) may inquire of the lower court which handled the process originally, and the information should be provided within 15 days. After the information is provided, the court of appeal will evaluate the request, and if the use of the Incident is approved, all cases that deal with the same question of law in the court of appeal jurisdiction area will be suspended until a ruling on the common legal question. The time period in which other cases are suspended is limited to six months as a rule, but the period can be extended by the rapporteur of the Incident.

The design of the new code specifically provides for the investigation and resolution of a single case to be admitted as a paradigm of the controversy. The code does not specify whether the Incident is to be considered a representative process, an individual process, or a collective process. In any event, all individual actions may be suspended the same as in a collective action if they are not chosen as representative of the dispute process.

Interested parties may participate in the controversy, joined by the request for documents or conducting investigations. They will have fifteen days to present documents and explain the controversy in 15 days, as well as the Public Prosecutor.

In the trial day, all interested parties are limited to a total of 30 minutes of presentation time to the court. This can be a very small amount of time per interested party, depending on the number who seek to appear. Thus, as a practical matter, although the Incident process is described as participatory, stakeholders have a limited practical ability to manifest themselves in the process. Instead, all cases are decided based on a paradigm.

There is a possibility of appeal to the Superior Court (STJ), or in extraordinary cases, to the Supreme Court (STF), from the court of origin where the Incident was approved. The appeal can be brought by any person who is party to ongoing process which discusses the same legal situation.

After the judgment of the Incident, the bill states that a party may file a complaint in the court that issued the judgment is another court disregards the theory adopted in the Incident.

This was just a brief overview of the new Incident procedure, which is expected to be integrated into Brazilian law in the very near future. However, the bill for a new civil procedure code is still in process, and there are a large number of projects of new bills and new codes in analysis in Brazil, so changes can happen at any time.

So, stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

In this era of globalization, one key issues in international class and collective actions is the recognition of foreign judgments by countries who lack the same collective or class action procedures.  I was recently introduced to a lawyer and scholar, Leandro Perucchi, who published his PhD thesis on this topic.  Dr. Perucchi’s book, with the German title Anerkennung und Vollstrechung von US Class action-Urteilen und -Vergleichen in der Schweiz, concludes that class action judgments and settlements can be recognized in Switzerland and be given res judicata effect.  

Foreign enforceability of class action judgments is an important question facing any litigant or court involved in international or transnational class action litigation.  Even when it is permitted (see this CAB entry discussing the Supreme Court’s Morrison v. Australia National Bank decision addressing foreign-cubed class actions), obtaining a class action judgment against a foreign defendant in the United States may be a hollow victory if the defendant lacks sufficient US assets and is located in a country that does not recognize US class action judgments as enforceable.

Read Full Post »

In my 2010 wrap up posted last week, I neglected to mention one of the three class action-related cases in which the United States Supreme Court granted cert in 2010.   Smith v. Bayer is an appeal of a case that did make my top 10 list, In re Baycol Products Litigation, 593 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2010).  The Court granted cert last September to address whether a federal court that has denied class certification has the power to enjoin the relitigation of the class certification issue by members of the would be class in a separate state court proceeding.  (See this link for the full text of the “questions presented”).  Oral argument is set for January 18, 2011. 

For an excellent preview of the “trifecta” of class action-related cases pending before the Supreme Court this term, see this December 20, 2010 article from Daniel Fisher at Forbes.com.

Read Full Post »

Last week, I posted a short note about the Eighth Circuit’s decision in In re Baycol Products Litigation.  Here is a more in-depth synopsis, thanks to fellow Baker & Hostetler partner Joe Ezzi:

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court order enjoining state court plaintiffs from pursuing a class action because the district court had already denied certification of an identical class in federal court.  In re Baycol Products Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. January 5, 2010).

A state court putative class action was filed by George McCollins in West Virginia in 2001.  Bayer removed the case and it became part of a multidistrict action consolidated before the district court in Minneapolis.  Class certification was denied in the McCollins MDL class action, with the district court making certain legal conclusions concerning economic loss requirements under West Virginia law related to predominance.  At the same time, a similar West Virginia state court class action was pending against Bayer, albeit with different putative class representatives.  Following the district court’s denial of class certification, Bayer moved the district court to enjoin the plaintiffs in the West Virginia state court action from pursuing a class action because, as absent putative class members of the McCollins lawsuit, they could not relitigate the previous federal court decision denying certification of a West Virginia economic loss class.  The district court granted Bayer’s request for an injunction under the All Writs Act. 

The Eighth Circuit, in affirming the district court order enjoining the West Virginia state court class action, found that the West Virginia state court plaintiffs sought “certification on the same legal basis of the same class already denied in this case.”  In re Baycol Products Litig., ___ F.3d ___ (8th Cir. January 5, 2010), slip op. at 6.  Thus, “in the context of MDL proceedings, certification in a state court of the same class under the same legal theories previously rejected by the federal district court presents an issue sufficiently identical to warrant preclusion under federal common law.”  Id. at 10.  Further, relying on the Seventh Circuit decision in In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d 763 (2003), the Eighth Circuit noted that the putative class representative in the federal action was in privity with the state court class representatives for purposes of collateral estoppel based on allegations of adequacy of representation and because both putative class representatives asserted the same claims.

Read Full Post »

A colleague tipped me off today to a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding a Minnesota federal district court’s order enjoining class certification proceedings in a West Virginia state court, following the federal court’s earlier denial of class certification in an action filed against the same defendant.  Here’s a link to the slip opinion: In re Baycol Products Litigation, No. 09-1069 (8th Cir., Jan. 5 2010).  The decision is in accord with a 2003 Seventh Circuit decision, In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d 763, 767-68 (7th Cir. 2003), which also held that the relitigation exception to the federal Anti-Injunction Act “permitted an injunction barring relitigation in state court of a federal court’s denial of class certification.”  In re Baycol Prods. Lit., No. 09-1069, slip op. at 9 (citing In re Bridgestone/Firestone, 333 F.3d at 769).

Read Full Post »

In late July, I commented on a possible trend in courts allowing foreign investors to be included as class members in securities class actions filed in U.S. courts.  At the time, the primary decision allowing foreign investors to be included in an opt-out securities class was In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Sec. Litig., 242 F.R.D. 76 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).  In Vivendi, the Court had allowed French, English, and Dutch investors to be included in the class after finding based on a preponderance of the evidence that the courts in those countries would recognize a U.S. class action judgment as preclusive as to absent class members.

In August of this year, Judge Victor Marrero of the same court addressed the issue of whether French investors could be included in a securities fraud class action against another French company, but reached a different result.  In re Alstom SA Securities Litigation, 03 Civ. 6595 (VM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2008).  Judge Marrero’s opinion cites Vivendi’s analysis extensively, but ultimately concludes that French courts would not give preclusive effect to the judgment of a United States court in an opt-out securities class action.  The reasons for the departure in Alstom are based on developments impacting the factual findings underlying the Vivendi court’s conclusion on how a French court would probably resolve the issue, as summed up in this footnote:

The Court notes that the Vivendi court concluded that a French court would not find that a United States opt-out class action would violate French public policy because, at least in part, there was at that time an “ongoing debate in legal and business sectors” regarding the possibility of French authorities adopting an opt-out framework. Vivendi, 242 F.R.D. at 101. Vivendi, however, was issued on May 21, 2007, which was prior to the issuance of the Ministry of Justice Letter, the Constitutional Council’s August 16, 2007 decision, and the Attali Commission’s final report in 2008, all of which expressly rejected opt-out mechanisms of class actions as contrary to French Constitutional principles.

Alstom, slip op. at 47 n.11. 

A full copy of the Alstom opinion is available here, thanks to AmLaw Daily.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »