Class action, via alla riforma

[FaGal]

Class action, via alla riforma
Il presidente Bush ha firmato ieri la nuova legge che limita il ricorso alle denunce contro le società Usa


NEW YORK • George W. Bush non ha perso tempo nel trasformare in legge la riforma delle class action. Il presidente ha firmato ieri il progetto fresco di approvazione del Congresso, tra il plauso delle grandi aziende americane che hanno guidato una lunga crociata volta a limitare i danni inflitti dalle azioni legali collettive. Per Bush la riforma è diventata anche la prima vittoria legislativa della sua seconda amministrazione.
« La legge rappresenta un passo cruciale — ha detto il presidente — per porre termine alla cultura delle denunce negli Stati Uniti e per progredire verso un migliore sistema legale » . Bush, quale esempio degli eccessi dei quali soffre il sistema, ha citato Madison County, nello stato dell'Illinois come patria delle class action: in questa contea ogni anno vengono presentate decine di casi rispetto alla manciata di denunce solo pochi anni or sono. Nel 2003 la Philip Morris perse proprio qui un verdetto da 10,1 miliardi di dollari legato agli effetti delle sigarette leggere e a inadeguati avvertimenti sui loro rischi per la salute.
Dalla maggiorazna repubblicana al Congresso sono giunti altrettante dichiarazioni di vittoria. « Abbiamo spezzato una delle catene che imprigionavano la nostra economia, l'abuso delle denunce » , ha commentato il presidente della Camera Dennis Hastert. Con procedura d'urgenza Hastert aveva ottenuto giovedì notte dai deputati il varo del progetto, votato dal Senato soltanto la scorsa settimana.
I tribunali americani presentano alle aziende un conto legale stimato in centinaia di miliardi di dollari l'anno, tra danni e risarcimenti. La misura chiave della riforma trasferisce automaticamente le class action, dove singole denunce si gonfiano a rappresentare intere " classi" di danneggiati, dalle corti locali ai tribunali federali quando le cifre in gioco superino i cinque milioni di dollari. Un trasferimento che intende raffreddare il clima di ricorsi per danni: i magistrati federali, infatti, sono ritenuti meno flessibili e generosi della giustizia statale nel riconoscere la validità delle richieste di class action e nel legittimare eventuali sentenze multimilionarie.
Spesso gli studi legali specializzati nella azini collettive hanno finora dato la caccia alle sedi locali considerate più favorevoli a elargire danni colossali per presentare i casi. La riforma conterrà anche le parcelle degli avvocati, almeno quando ai danni monetari si sostituiscano pagamenti sotto forma di sconti su prodotti.
I fautori della riforma hanno tuttavia pagato almeno un prezzo per la rapidità con cui è stata approvata la legge: hanno dovuto rinunciare a un emendamento che avrebbe reso retroattivo il provvedimento, consentendo di applicare i nuovi limiti anche alle battaglie legali già in corso. La legge mantiene inoltre un'eccezione per quelle che vengono considerate autentiche dispute locali: se almeno un terzo dei promotori della causa risiede nello stesso Stato dove ha sede il grande accusato, il caso potrà rimanere nelle mani della corte locale.
Non tutti si sono allineati dietro al presidente nel sostenere la riforma: « È un regalo ai big del tabacco, dell'amianto, del petrolio, della chimica, alle spese dei cittadini » , ha accusato il deputato democratico del Massachusetts Ed Markey. Anche le associazioni dei consumatori hanno attaccato la riforma. Ma numerosi esponenti democratici hanno a loro volta votato per la riforma.
E altre iniziative legislative per limitare l'impatto delle denunce, sono in arrivo: da nuovi tetti ai danni nelle cause contro i medici fino a una sanatoria per le imprese colpite da ricorsi sull'amianto.(LEGGI HALLIBURTON)


Non sono se le leggi ad personam siano un flusso giuridico tra sistemi che esportiamo noi..qualcosa esportiamo...o forse lo abbiamo importato da loro..chissà

http://www.assinews.it/rassegna/arti...e190205ac.html

[FaGal]

Ci vuole in Italia l'azione collettiva


I l 4 febbraio scorso la Cassazione a sezioni unite ha sancito che i consumatori sono oggetto di diretta protezione da parte della normativa antitrust. L'affermazione di questo principio porta come conseguenza il fatto che nel caso in cui le pratiche anticoncorrenziali delle imprese, sia nella forma dell'abuso di posizione dominante sia nella forma del cartello, producano un danno per le tasche dei consumatori, questi avranno il diritto di rivolgersi all'autorità giudiziaria ordinaria, e segnatamente alla Corte d'appello competente per territorio, per ottenere il risarcimento del danno subito o la restituzione del prezzo eccessivo pagato. Detto così potrebbe sembrare che la Cassazione sia approdata alla scoperta dell'acqua calda: i consumatori sono le vittime sacrificali delle pratiche anticoncorrenziali delle imprese, finalizzate proprio ad aumentare i prezzi che verranno pagati dai consumatori stessi, e dunque è ovvio che siano oggetto della tutela e che possano ottenerne il risarcimento. Ma si sa, i giuristi sono campioni di sottili distinguo e dunque ci sono voluti ben quindici anni di accesi dibattiti, diverse pronunce contrastanti anche della Suprema Corte per arrivare alla recentissima fondamentale pronuncia che mette d'accordo tutti e chiude una prima fase del dibattito con l'affermazione, invero fondamentale e rispondente a un moderno sistema di repressione dell'illecito, della tutela dei consumatori.
Ma quale è il futuro delle azioni risarcitorie dei consumatori? Qualcuno ( cfr. A. Nicolussi sul Sole 24 Ore dell' 11 febbraio 2005) lo vede nerissimo e critica la Cassazione per non avere avuto il coraggio di affermare che l'azione risarcitoria dei consumatori dovesse essere sottratta ai vincoli della legge antitrust, e dunque alla competenza della Corte d'appello, ed essere assoggettata alle regole generali. In effetti questa era l'istanza delle centinaia di migliaia di cause conseguenti alla pronuncia dell'Antitrust sul cartello delle compagnie di assicurazione promosse innanzi ai giudici di pace sparsi per il Paese. La Cassazione ha respinto questo tentativo considerando i consumatori come protagonisti del mercato e come tali vincolati anch'essi alle speciali regole procedurali dettate dalla legge antitrust.
Credo che la recente sentenza sia corretta in ogni passaggio anche se non si può negare che la soluzione accolta rischia di rendere impraticabili le azioni di modesto contenuto economico individuale per un problema di costi.
Le azioni davanti ai giudici di pace possono essere promosse in proprio dal danneggiato senza l'assistenza di un legale e dunque a costi molto ridotti. Innanzi alla Corte d'appello questo non è possibile e dunque automaticamente risulteranno escluse quanto meno tutte le azioni che non giustifichino l'anticipazione dei costi da parte del danneggiato. Il problema degli incentivi è un profilo decisivo della strutturazione di un efficiente sistema di repressione dell'illecito, ma ritengo che si debba in ogni momento tenere conto di tutti gli interessi contrapposti e dunque anche di quello delle imprese coinvolte. Un sistema come quello della competenza ordinaria che può costringere l'impresa a fronteggiare milioni di cause in tutto il Paese innanzi a giudici ben difficilmente competenti della materia è un sistema a zero costi per i danneggiati, ma con costi elevatissimi per i danneggianti sia in termini di oneri processuali, che di prevedibilità del giudizio. Non può essere questo un buon sistema e bene ha fatto la Cassazione a fermarlo sul nascere.
Alla luce di questa sentenza, e non solo nell'ambito del diritto antitrust, urge l'introduzione nel nostro sistema processuale delle class action di origine anglosassone che hanno il pregio di accoppiare gli incentivi per i danneggiati, che possono realizzare costi individuali molto bassi, e la tutela dei diritti del presunto danneggiante che potrà concentrare i propri sforzi in un unico giudizio innanzi a un giudice specializzato, limitando i propri costi.
Il dibattito che negli Stati Uniti sta portando a una revisione dell'istituto va nella direzione di affidare queste delicate azioni a giudici competenti e affidabili per evitare abusi, ma in nessun modo mette in discussione l'efficacia di uno strumento indispensabile per la tutela dei diritti individuali. Occorre che il Parlamento italiano si affretti: ogni dilazione consente a nuovi illeciti di restare impuniti.
DI ALBERTO TOFFOLETTO*
* Ordinario di diritto commerciale all'Università di Castellanza
http://www.assinews.it/rassegna/arti...190205ac2.html

[FaGal]

The Rise (or Fall) of Class Action Costs
Gargantuan settlements in shareholder class action lawsuits have obscured several contradictory trends.
Stephen Taub, CFO.com
February 15, 2005

The average settlement in a shareholder class action lawsuit amounted to $27.1 million last year, up 33 percent from $20.3 million for 2003, according to the latest annual study of class action litigation by NERA Economic Consulting.

Of last year's 119 settlements, 16 of them exceeded $50 million; 9 topped $100 million. In fact, the lawsuits against WorldCom, Raytheon, and Bristol-Myers Squibb produced three of the eight largest shareholder class-action settlements of all time, with a combined value of over $3.3 billion.
These gargantuan settlements, however, obscure several contradictory trends.

In 2004 the median settlement fell for the second straight year, to $5.3 million, from $5.5 million in 2003 and $6 million in 2002. More than 70 percent of settlements last year were valued at $10 million or less; more than 44 percent came in under $5 million.

Meanwhile, the number of shareholder class actions against public companies has barely budged since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Last year, 238 suits were filed, compared with 234 in 2003.

The data will provide more fodder for the debate over tort reform. As we reported, last week the Senate passed a bill that would make it more difficult to file class-action lawsuits against companies. The measure would require many cases to be brought in federal courts rather than in state courts, which are generally considered more favorable to plaintiffs.

NERA also noted that many of the companies that are settling lawsuits are instituting corporate governance reforms as part of their agreements. "Shareholder class actions are being used in new ways...to obtain specific corporate governance reforms," stated the consultancy's report.

Since the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley, at least nine settlements have incorporated such reforms, including cases involving AON Corp., HCA Inc., and Ingersoll-Rand Co. In fact, reported NERA, Ingersoll-Rand agreed to make corporate reforms in lieu of a cash settlement. But generally, added the consultancy, companies are agreeing to improve their governance practices in return for a lower cash outlay.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/36641...todayinfinance

[FaGal]

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/clssactns/cafa05.pdf

Il testo di legge

[FaGal]

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Senate Bill S.5 (2/05)

The United States Senate overwhelmingly passed the Class Action Fairness Act, Senate Bill 5 (S.5), on February 10, 2005. Thirty-three senators, including Republicans and Democrats, co-sponsored the bill. The United States House of Representatives (which passed a similar bill by a wide margin last year) is likely to pass this bill or a substantially similar bill this week. President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law.

The asserted purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act are to reduce frivolous class action lawsuits, decrease forum shopping, and curb class settlements that provide significant fees to class counsel, with marginal benefits to class members. If passed into law in its current form, the Act will facilitate the removal of large, multi-state class actions from state to federal court that are filed after the passage of the law. Complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiffs and defendants will no longer be required for federal court jurisdiction over certain high-stakes, multi-state class actions based upon state law. The Act will apply stricter scrutiny to coupon settlements, and in particular, to fee awards based upon coupon settlements.

Some of the key provisions of the Act, as it currently stands, are summarized below:

Original Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: The Act grants federal district courts original jurisdiction of any civil class action in which the matter in controversy (1) exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, AND (2) diversity of citizenship exists between any one member of the plaintiff class (whether a named plaintiff or not) and any defendant. The diversity of citizenship requirement is met where any plaintiff is a citizen of a State that is different from any defendant; or where the action is between a citizen of a State and a foreign State or a foreign citizen. Under certain circumstances specified in the Act, however, district courts must decline jurisdiction or exercise discretion in determining whether to decline jurisdiction over a class action based upon, among other things, the percentage of class members who are citizens of the forum State as well as whether a primary defendant is also a citizen of the forum State. For example, if two-thirds or more of the class members and the primary defendants are citizens of the forum State, a federal court must decline jurisdiction.

Removal: The Act sets forth provisions governing the removal of interstate class actions to federal district court and authorizes discretionary appellate review of district court orders granting or denying a motion to remand. The Act provides for expedited rulings on these appeals.

Coupon Settlements: If a coupon settlement is proposed, the court may approve the settlement only after it holds a hearing and makes a written finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to class members. The court may also require that the settlement provide for the distribution of a portion of the value of the unclaimed coupons to charitable or governmental organizations, as agreed to by the parties.

Attorneys’ Fees in Coupon Settlements: If class counsel has a contingency fee arrangement with plaintiffs, then an award of attorneys’ fees based upon a class settlement with coupons must be valued by the amount of coupons redeemed, rather than the value of coupons issued. Attorneys’ fees awarded in other coupon settlements shall be based on the amount of time reasonably expended by class counsel. Alternatively, a court may apply a lodestar with a multiplier method to calculate attorneys’ fees. The Act provides no guidance on attorneys’ fees in non-coupon settlements.

Nonmonetary Benefits to Class: A settlement where any class member is obligated to pay sums to class counsel that would render a net loss to the class member may be approved only when the court finds that nonmonetary benefits to the class member substantially outweigh the monetary loss.

Prohibiting Geographic Discrimination: Courts will be prohibited from approving a settlement that provides for greater sums to certain class members based simply on their geographic proximity to the court.

Notice to State and Federal Officials: The Act provides for notification procedures to both federal and state officials with supervisory responsibilities over defendants before a proposed settlement may be approved.

Reporting on Class Action Settlements: The Act directs the Judicial Conference of the United States to report on class action settlements, incorporating recommendations for best court practices to ensure fairness for class members and appropriate fees for counsel.

Effective Date: The amendments made by the Act apply to civil actions commenced on or after the date of enactment of the Act.

The Class Action Fairness Act does not strip state courts of jurisdiction over multi-state class actions, as has been widely misstated in the press. The Act does, however, create a new basis for removal of and federal jurisdiction over certain large, multi-state class actions that previously proceeded only in state courts. Although the new requirements for federal jurisdiction are complicated, the Act will likely result in the removal of a significant number of multi-state class action cases from state to federal court. Many speculate that this will decrease the number of cases where multi-state classes are certified. Others contend that large verdicts from runaway juries will be minimized. It is probably too soon to tell. What is certain, however, is defendants will now have a new weapon with which to fight forum shopping in state courts friendly to class action cases. At the same time, the increased scrutiny of coupon and other class action settlement provisions will no doubt alter the manner in which multi-state class actions can be resolved.


http://www.mofo.com/news/print.cfm?ID=1436

[FaGal]

Bush Signs Bill to Limit Class Action Suits
Jesse J. Holland
The Associated Press
02-22-2005

President Bush on Friday signed a bill that he says will curtail multimillion-dollar class action lawsuits against companies and help end "the lawsuit culture in our country."

The legislation aims to discourage class action lawsuits by having federal judges take them away from state courts. It was a victory for conservatives who hope it will lead to other lawsuit limits and for businesses that have complained for decades that state judges and juries have been too generous to plaintiffs.

The president has described class action suits, in which a single person or a small group can represent the interests of thousands in court, as often frivolous. He said greedy lawyers have taken advantage of the state class action suit system by filing cases in places where they know they can win big-dollar verdicts -- while their clients get only small sums or coupons giving them discounts for products of the company they just sued.

"This bill helps fix the system," Bush said in the East Room of the White House, surrounded by Democratic and Republican lawmakers for his first bill-signing ceremony of the year. "Congress has done its duty."

Consumer groups and trial lawyers fought against the bill, but lost their struggle when Republicans gained seats in last fall's elections and Democrats defected on the issue.

"The House of Representatives joined the Senate in sending a clear message to the nation: The rights of large corporations that take advantage of seniors, low-wage workers and local communities are more important than the rights of average American citizens," said Helen Gonzales of USAction, a liberal, pro-consumer activist group.

During the brief ceremony, Bush repeatedly described the bill as just a beginning in his drive to place much broader restraints on the American legal system. Next up, he said, should be curbs on asbestos litigation and medical malpractice awards.

The president, the GOP and businesses have criticized what they see as a litigation crisis that enables lawyers to reap huge profits while businesses -- and thus consumers -- are stuck with the bill.

"We're making important progress toward a better legal system," he said. "There's more to do. … We have a responsibility to confront frivolous lawsuits head-on."

Under the legislation Bush signed, class action suits seeking $5 million or more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state. But if fewer than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same state as the primary defendant and more than $5 million is at stake, the case would go to federal court.

Businesses failed to get the measure to apply to suits already in the courts.

The bill also would limit lawyers' fees in settlements where plaintiffs get discounts on products instead of financial settlements. The measure links the fees to the coupon's redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a case.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said that moving those cases to federal court will ensure that state judges will no longer "routinely approve settlements in which the lawyers receive large fees and the class members receive virtually nothing."

But Democrats say Republicans just want to protect corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by keeping them clear of state courts that might issue multimillion-dollar verdicts against them.

Federal courts are expected to allow fewer large class action suits to go forward, which Democrats say means more businesses will get away with wrongdoing and fewer ordinary people will be protected.

"It's the final payback to the tobacco industry, to the asbestos industry, to the oil industry, to the chemical industry at the expense of ordinary families who need to be able go to court to protect their loved ones when their health has been compromised," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. "And these people are saying that your state isn't smart enough, your jurors aren't smart enough" to hear those cases.

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389940701

[FaGal]

Class Action Act Doesn't Go Far Enough
Mark K. Moller
Legal Times
02-22-2005


Republican leaders claim to have "reformed" class actions -- by passing a bill that will pull more of these lawsuits into federal court. Too good to be true? You bet. Congress' reform -- the Class Action Fairness Act -- doesn't go nearly far enough to end lawsuit abuse.

Right now, abuse of class actions is portrayed as a function of bad state judges who sign off on frivolous lawsuits. But the problem isn't that simple. Yes, state judges can turn losing lawsuits into winning ones. But it's not because state judges are less virtuous than federal jurists. It's because the class action device is tailor-made to produce bad results.

CLASSES GONE BAD

Why? Judge Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit put his finger on the problem in a 2002 opinion striking down a class action over defective Bridgestone tires. He called class actions a kind of judicial "central planning," akin to decision making by a central regulator. The analogy is apt: A single class action is not really one lawsuit. It's a court-ordered aggregation of many similar lawsuits into a class. It can often include tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of individual claims.

And it puts all those lawsuits in the hands of one judge, who must determine how to value them. Just like consumer goods, lawsuits have prices -- namely, the payments that losing defendants must make to victorious plaintiffs. In theory, worthless lawsuits have a low price -- the plaintiffs get nothing. Meritorious ones pay more. But as Judge Easterbrook noted, one judge is no more likely to set the right price for tens of thousands of lawsuits than Soviet central planners did for the price of Ukrainian wheat or Lada cars.

Put simply, one-shot legal proceedings -- like all other forms of central planning -- carry a big risk of error. Inevitably, more bad claims are upheld, innocent defendants are extorted, and the public interest is ill-served -- no matter what the quality of judge tasked with managing these cases.

Take a current class action proceeding against multiple HMOs on behalf of more than a half-million doctors. Brought in federal court (the preferred venue for congressional reformers), the case claims that health insurers weren't properly reimbursing doctors for their services. The case raises national concerns: The Washington Post has warned that such class actions against HMOs will likely benefit lawyers, not patients.

As it turned out, the federal judge in Miami managed to engineer a deal between the plaintiffs' lawyers and Aetna, the country's biggest HMO and one of the original defendants, with ambiguous results. Lawyers received as much as $50 million, while 600,000 doctors got an estimated $150 each, together with promises from Aetna to adopt new billing procedures. HMOs cautioned that the money may come out of patients' pockets, since court-ordered payouts usually translate into higher insurance premiums.

Could another deal -- one that better served doctors, patients, and Aetna -- have been struck? We'll never know. In this one-shot proceeding, experimentation wasn't an option.

BREAK UP THE POWER

Congress' latest "reform" -- the Class Action Fairness Act -- embraces the HMO lawsuit model. Not only does it give federal courts control over most class actions; it authorizes a special tribunal to consolidate similar actions and send them to one federal judge. This guarantees that a single court will have the power to engineer one vast deal, settling the rights of thousands in a pen stroke. It's judicial central planning, pure and simple.

There is a better way. It's called decentralization.

Markets use it: Over time, the price of compact cars or sneakers is set by millions of individual transactions, not by one price control board. Our Constitution uses it: Power is dispersed among the states, ensuring that if one adopts bad policies, its citizens can move to a more congenial home. Courts should decentralize as well. Imagine a company has harmed a class of 1,000 people. When their lawsuits are divided among several courts, there's less risk of injustice overall. If one court approves a settlement that cheats some plaintiffs or abuses some defendants, other courts might do better. One bad judge won't spoil all the lawsuits.

Decentralization also checks abuse by lawyers. Those who truly protect their clients' interests will attract more plaintiffs to their cases; those who do not will attract fewer.

Put simply, competition -- in court, as in politics and the marketplace -- prevents abuse of power. As Easterbrook put it in the Bridgestone case, when courts consider how to manage class actions, "they should think of market models rather than central-planning models."

LET THE PEOPLE CHOOSE

How to decentralize? First, the existing rules that favor transferring all related federal class actions to one federal court should be changed. More, not fewer, judges should hear these suits.

Second, Congress must pass the Right to Choose Your Own Lawyer Act, soon to be introduced by Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.). It would break class actions into smaller parcels. Here's how: Current law presumes that you "consent" to be included as a plaintiff in a class action if you don't ask to be excluded. This takes away your control over where and when and how to sue. It's like a system in which the government forces you to buy a product from a preferred seller -- here, it's a court and some plaintiffs lawyers that are "selling" a particular legal proceeding -- unless you ask for permission to buy from someone else. Indeed, unless you raise your voice, this system forces you to buy from a preferred seller even if your preference would have been to buy nothing at all.

When people aren't at liberty to sue where and when and how they wish -- because they've been shunted into a single proceeding -- that one court essentially holds a monopoly on like claims. It becomes the only game in town.

Such a system doesn't foster competition. It suppresses it, while providing the illusion of choice. The Right to Choose Your Own Lawyer Act would change this dynamic. It would force a court to assume that people don't want to be involved in a class action unless they actually ask to be included (or, in legal jargon, "opt in" after receiving judicial notice). That returns the power of choice to the lawsuit consumer.

When individuals themselves choose to file suit, they are more likely to select different lawyers, and different courts, to settle their rights -- just as consumers select different suppliers for their cars or shoes. As astounded Soviet refugees discovered when they visited American supermarkets, competition promotes diversity.

To be sure, this opt-in rule isn't a panacea. But it's a start, one that points out the right path: Good reform doesn't give ultimate power to one federal judge. It checks that power -- by putting control over lawsuits back in the hands of victims.

Mark K. Moller is the editor in chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. He previously represented Aetna in class action litigation as a lawyer at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Moller's article on class action reform will appear in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (May/June 2005).
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389947693