Last month, the philosopher and New York Times "Ethicist" columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah fielded a reader question near and dear to our
hearts: should I file this class action claim? Here
is the question in full:
“I was recently informed via
email that I could be entitled to a share of a settlement from a class-action
lawsuit. The company being sued denied wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement
to avoid an expensive legal battle. I admire this company and have used its
product for years. My suspicion is that the lawyers behind the lawsuit are
bounty hunters exploiting a technicality. Should I still file for my share of
the settlement? (It would be modest — enough to take my husband out for
dinner.) If I don’t take my share, everyone else will just get more.”
Now, before we get to Appiah’s answer, here is ours:
File the claim!
OK, here is our longer answer:
The only thing we can discern from these details is the
settlement is pro rata, which is a Latin term meaning “in proportion.” In a pro
rata settlement, each claimant gets a percentage based on two things:
1) How much the claimant purchased. (i.e., if it is
a refrigerator settlement and you had purchased one fridge from the defendant,
then you get one portion of the settlement. Two fridges, two portions, etc.)
2) HOW MANY PEOPLE FILE A CLAIM
Yep, that second point is all-caps-level serious. That’s because the typical class action has a very low participation rate. In many cases, class members receive far more than they would if 100% of the class filed claims. (A good rule of thumb is that the average case has a 33% participation rate.)
The rest of the litigation is a
mystery—but fortunately it’s also irrelevant since the court is no longer even considering the merits of the case.
The reader notes, in defense of the company it seems, that
they “denied wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to avoid an expensive
legal battle.” However, defendants just about always say that. Likewise, plaintiffs will similarly say the opposite— something along the lines of "While Class Representatives believe they have meritorious claims, they recognize that there
are significant obstacles in the way to recovery."
When the court approves a settlement, it no longer considers whether the plaintiff’s claims are true or the defendant’s denials are true. It simply considers whether the settlement’s proportionality is fair to all those deemed class members. Also keep in mind that the court could have dismissed the case at many points on the road to this settlement, which is something courts do in other cases all the time. If it was not clear to an attorney savvy enough to rise to the level of arbiter of complicated legal disputes—that is, a judge— how will it be readily obvious to a claimant?
Of course, there have been excesses in the court system. "Tort reform” has been a cause for decades in the United States, and Congress has passed measures like the 2005 Class Action Fairness Act and the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to try to prevent abuses of the class action system by opportunistic people. But even in a case where the average citizen and the savvy expert alike might roll their eyes and say, “This case is ridiculous,” remember that neither the court nor the settlement affirms or denies the claims of the case. At this point, the court certifies that a group of people and/or businesses are a class, and each member of that class has been granted rights in proportion to their experience with the defendant company. And that’s it.
To file that claim is to claim those rights. To choose not
to is to cede those rights—and the money to someone else.
So, what did Professor Appiah say? (We’ve highlighted the core of his response.)
“From one perspective, the
company and the class-action lawyers are both economic actors; the company’s
legal team will have made their best assessment of its potential losses, as the
opposing lawyers will have made their best assessment of their potential gains,
and they will have litigated or negotiated accordingly. Still, if you are right
— and you ought to spend a little more time to satisfy yourself that you are — taking
your share would mean going along with a scheme that wrongly exploits the
class-action system. Your suspected bounty hunters wouldn’t really be
contributing to either of the two desirable ends that can recommend such suits:
compensating those who have been wronged and discouraging future offenses. Giving
up your share wouldn’t change this, of course. But at least the affair wouldn’t
be something you took part in or benefited from. Why not let your husband
take you out to dinner and celebrate that?”
The Ethicist is a fun column, but we think Professor Appiah gets it wrong here. A low participation rate is not the force which will stop exploitation in the class action system, and the reader is not “going along with a scheme” if the scheme has already ended. The reader, by ceding money to other claimants, is simply ensuring those claimants get an ever-so-slightly larger slice of the settlement.
Link:
"Should I Take My Share of a Class-Action Settlement I Think Could Be Bogus?" --The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/magazine/class-action-settlement-ethics.html
Plaintiffs allege Alibaba's anti-competitive practices and a canceled IPO drove down stock price
CCC is Preparing Claims for Qualcomm Investors, Deadline Only Weeks Away
Plaintiffs allege Uber IPO was a "train wreck" for investors
Under Armour settles securities suit over allegations high inventories led to low profits
Apple, Boeing, and Weatherford Each Agree to Mega-Settlements
Alphabet Settles Securities Suit for $350 Million
Stock Loan Antitrust Settlement: A big opportunity should not be a big hassle
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Settles Securities Class Action over Alleged Illicit Sales Practices
Allegation that You’re in Bad Hands with Allstate Leads to $90 Million Settlement
Claim Forms Are Coming in the Payment Card Interchange Fee. CCC Can Help
Alexion Pharmaceuticals Settles Securities Class Action over Alleged Illicit Sales Practices
Allegation that You’re in Bad Hands with Allstate Leads to $90 Million Settlement
Claim Forms Are Coming in the Payment Card Interchange Fee. CCC Can Help
World Cup Bribery Scandal Leads to $95 Million Grupo Televisa Settlement
Case Profiles: The Kraft Heinz Company Securities Litigation and Fair Fund
Millions in Unsellable Inventory Leads to $109 Million Cardinal Health Securities Settlement
Securities Class Action Settlements in 2022 Hit Highest Levels in 15 Years
Micro Focus Settles Suit Alleging it Botched HPE Purchase for $107.5 Million
Wells Fargo Settles Securities Suit for $300 Million
Generic Drug Price-Fixing Allegations Lead to McKesson's $141 Million Settlement
Tesla Fends Off Securities Suit With Rare Victory in a Rare Trail
Elon Musk's Infamous 4-20 Tweet Leads to Rare Securities Litigation Trial
Barclays Massive Bond Over-Issuance Leads to a Securities Class Action
$809.5 Twitter Settlement Arrives at Last
How to Claim Your Piece of the $5.54 Billion Payment Card Settlement
Anti-competition Probes and Overexpansion Lead to Multiple Class Actions Against Amazon
How CCC Helps Investors Participate in Foreign Financial Litigations
Cryptic Tweet Leads to $40 Million Tesla Fair Fund
Nielsen Holdings, Market Share King, Settles Securities Suit over Its Own Market Troubles
Infrastructure Cost Overruns Leads to $129 Million Granite Construction Securities Settlement
Petrobras Fair Fund Offers $85.32 Million in Relief to Harmed Investors
Barclays and JPMorgan Settle Mexican Bond Antitrust Litigation for $20,700,000
Deadline Is Soon for the $27.5 Million GreenSky Securities Settlement
Symantec, now known as NortonLifeLock, Settles Securities Suit for $70 Million
Corrections Corporation of America Settles Securities Litigation over the Safety of Its Prisons
Twitter Securities Class Action Ends with an $809.5 Million Settlement
Honest Company, Boston Beer Company, Waterdrop, and Longeveron Face Securities Class Action Suits
Door Manufacturer JELD-WEN Settles Securities Suit Related to Price-Fixing Scandal
Allergan Settles Securities Suit Related to Price-Fixing Scandal for $130 Million
Nikola Trucks Scandal Leads to Securities Suit and a Criminal Indictment of Its Founder
Why Every Investor Needs a Class Action Claim Filing Partner
Willis Towers Watson Settles a Pair of Merger-Related Suits for $90 Million
Snap Settles Two Suits in State and Federal Court for $187,500,000
Another MBS Settlement: $275 Million Morgan Stanley Fair Fund
Santander Consumer Holdings USA Securities Class Action Provides $39 Million to Investors
Avon Settles Suit Over Brazilian Market Practices
The LIBOR Bondholder Settlement: Several Big Problems and One Simple Solution
Snap, Parent Company of Snapchat, Settles Suit Over Allegations They Understated Competition
Eight Years in the Making, First Solar Settlement Provides $350 Million to Harmed Investors
Coronavirus Related Securities Class Actions Arrive
GSE Bonds Antitrust Litigation Update
Equifax Data Breach Leads to Securities Litigation Settlement
Wells Fargo Fair Fund to Provide $500 Million to Investors
NERA Year-End Report for 2019: More complaints, bigger backlog of unresolved cases
GSE Bonds Claim Filing Deadline Extended to February 28, 2020
404 South Wells St., Suite 600,
Chicago, IL 60607 – United States
Phone: (312) 204-6970
Email:
info@chicagoclearing.com
Chicago Clearing Corporation is the
industry leader in class-action services.
2024 © Chicago Clearing Corporation. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions