Court settles settlement class issue; 'Amchem' decision holds that class settlements must provide protection for absent members

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's Amchem decision resolves the issue of settlement classes and will directly affect strategies in future class actions. Under the decision, absent class members must receive adequate protection under a proposed settlement. The decision throws out an historic asbestos settlement, but institutes changes likely to result in more efficient litigation. In actuality, class action settlements will continue to be negotiated, albeit within the Amchem framework. The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules had proposed a settlement class provision that appears to be dead issue after Amchem.

All Other Nonmetallic Mineral Mining, Miscellaneous nonmetallic minerals, Asbestos, Asbestos industry

---

Court nixes latest settlement class; court strikes down 'limited fund' settlement class but leaves issues unanswered

Article Abstract:

In the 1998-99 term's Ortiz v. Fibreboard and the earlier Amchem v. Windsor, the US Supreme Court greatly lessened the chances of settlement classes in mass tort suits. The Ortiz court reversed the 5th Circuit's affirmation of the Rule 23(b)(1)(B) mandatory global settlement of asbestos claims known as the Ahearn settlement. Proponents of a (b)(1)(B) settlement must prove the existence of a limited fund on more evidence than the parties' agreement, and any limited-fund allocation must be free from conflicts.

United States, Negotiation, mediation and arbitration, Mass tort suits

---

New opinions defer to state law, courts; the court upholds state court class action settlements and laws limiting excessive jury awards

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court during its 1995-96 term ruled in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Epstein that the federal courts were to defer to state class action settlements. In Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., the court ruled that federal courts were to defer to state laws limiting excessive jury verdicts. Many constitutional scholars feel that the Gasperini decision subverts the constitutional right to a jury trial.

Jury, Juries, Excessive fines clause (Law)

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: Current issues in private placements: private/public offerings. Current issues in private placements: private public offerings
• Abstracts: Naming children as beneficiaries of retirement plan assets. New and expanded uses of viatical settlements in insurance planning
• Abstracts: Predispute ADR raises fairness issue; courts have not hesitated to enforce arbitration agreements except when the fairness of the process is compromised
• Abstracts: How to incorporate retirement benefits into an estate plan. Final GST tax regulations make important changes. Allocating a client's GST exemption most effectively
• Abstracts: ESOP used in corporate acquisition was not disqualified, did not engage in prohibited transaction. ESOP disqualified for violating exclusive benefit rule; 99% of assets invested in defaulted participant loans

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.