Law Commons^™

An Experiment In Law Reform: Amchem Products V. Windsor, Patrick M. Hanlon

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The Supreme Court's 1997 decision in Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor struck down the most ambitious settlement class action ever attempted. The settlement was, however, the logical outgrowth of the federal judiciary's efforts in the early 1990s to resolve a "disaster" of "critical proportions." Many factors, not least the Supreme Court's decision in Amchem, turned the tide against this trend. Ironically, however, the post-Amchem world has come to look a lot like Amchem. The settlement's central feature-deferral of unimpaired claims to assure the availability of resources to compensate the sick-was subsequently incorporated (either by statute or through judicial decision) into …

Foreward, Howard M. Erichson, Benjamin C. Zipursky

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Adequately Representing Groups, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ethical Issues In Mass Tort Plaintiffs’ Representation: Beyond The Aggregate Settlement Rule, Nancy J. Moore

Fordham Law Review

Those who have addressed ethics issues for plaintiffs’ lawyers in mass tort litigation have focused on possible reform of the aggregate settlement rule to facilitate global settlements. This Article addresses a broader range of ethical issues, including (1) application of the general conflicts of interest rule to both client-client and client-lawyer conflicts; (2) unresolved issues concerning the interpretation of the current aggregate settlement rule, including the need to disclose client names and the applicability of the rule to court-approved settlements and formula or matrix allocations; and (3) the ability of lawyers to voluntarily withdraw from representing plaintiffs who reject an …

Ethical Issues In Mass Tort Plaintiffs' Representation: Beyond The Aggregate Settlement Rule, Nancy J. Moore

Faculty Scholarship

Those who have addressed ethics issues for plaintiffs’ lawyers in mass tort litigation have focused on possible reform of the aggregate settlement rule to facilitate global settlements. This Article addresses a broader range of ethical issues, including (1) application of the general conflicts of interest rule to both client-client and client-lawyer conflicts; (2) unresolved issues concerning the interpretation of the current aggregate settlement rule, including the need to disclose client names and the applicability of the rule to court-approved settlements and formula or matrix allocations; and (3) the ability of lawyers to voluntarily withdraw from representing plaintiffs who reject an …

How Long Is Forever This Time? The Broken Promise Of Bankruptcy Trusts, S. Todd Brown

Journal Articles

Bankruptcy trusts consistently fail to protect the interests of future claimants as contemplated by Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. Although this reality is generally understood, the extent of this failure has not been examined. And, as demonstrated in this study, the degree to which trusts are failing future victims is greater than commonly realized. More than two-thirds of the trusts that have completed their initial claims processing are paying new asbestos personal injury victims at or near historically low rates, and several others appear to be defunct or inactive. Nearly two-thirds of the trusts that remain active have reduced …

Plaintiff Control And Domination In Multidistrict Mass Torts, S. Todd Brown

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions concerning preclusion doctrine stress the “deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.” Nonetheless, “properly conducted class actions” are a recognized exception to this general rule because such actions ensure that nonparties are “adequately represented by someone with the same interests who was a party to the suit.” Mass torts, however, frequently involve numerous plaintiffs with diverse legal and factual issues that are not “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Thus, it may be reasonably feared that the Court’s firm insistence on preserving individual autonomy will deny plaintiffs the economies …

Disaggregating, Elizabeth Chamblee Burch

Scholarly Works

Commonality is a defining characteristic of mass-tort litigation. But mass-tort claimants typically do not share enough in common to warrant class certification. That is, commonality does not predominate. Yet, without class certification, judges cannot conclude these cases as a unit absent a private settlement.

This paradox prompts two questions. First, what level of commonality justifies aggregating mass torts, shorn of Rule 23’s procedural protections? And, second, should the federal judicial system continue to centralize claims with nominal commonality when judges typically cannot resolve them collectively absent a private settlement? This Article’s title suggests one answer: if minimal commonality continues to …

Introduction, Perspectives On Mass Tort Litigation Symposium, Christopher J. Robinette

Christopher J Robinette