Class Action Cases Research Articles

Toward a History of Sexual Violence behind Bars

Toward a History of Sexual Violence behind Bars

증권관련집단소송 사건 중 집단소송허가절차에 관한 한국과 미국 법리 비교연구

The U. S. Supreme Court has decided four judgments in the past 10 years on the issues of the securities class action certification. Securities class action cases under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are actively filed in the United States. Under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, the plaintiffs are no longer required to prove individual reliance. This rule allowed the U.S. investor class to be more easily certified in a Rule 10b-5 securities class action.
 In Korea, the Securities-related Class Action Act was enacted.
 Although securities-related class actions were not actively filed, there were some cases where the Supreme Court of Korea interpreted the rule on class action certification. Under the rule interpreted by the Supreme Court of Korea, the requirements to be certified as a class are different from that of the United States.
 In the United States, plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action frequently submit event studies at the class certification stage. However, Korean plaintiffs are not required to submit an event study at the class certification stage in a typical stock price drop class action.
 This is because, as the article discusses, the substantive securities law and the class certification rule differs from that of the United States.

“Crossing the Sea under Camouflage”: Class Action and Investor Research

For a long time, China’s capital market has failed to establish a mature mechanism to coordinate the contradiction between the company and the small and medium-sized shareholders. Because the illegal income of listed companies far exceeds the illegal cost, the interests of small and medium-sized shareholders are constantly infringed. The situation that small and medium-sized investors are difficult to form a group and safeguard their rights has not been solved. The promulgation of the new “Securities Law” in 2020 further improves the representative litigation system, establishes the litigation principle of “implied entry and express exit”, increases the punishment for illegal listed companies, and strengthens the protection for investors. What needs to be explored is whether the promulgation of the new “Securities Law” has really increased the illegal cost of listed companies, what ways listed companies will adopt to manage investor relations, and how investors will be affected. Taking 36357 lawsuits, 1639 securities violations and 2341 A-share listed companies involved in lawsuits from 2001 to 2020 as research samples, this paper uses the event study method and the DID model to investigate the influence of the “representative litigation system” on the trial of class action cases, market reaction and company investor relationship management. Then, this paper discusses the impact of company violations and class action lawsuits on long-term and short-term corporate performance, and analyzes the mechanism of the impact on corporate performance from the perspective of investor sentiment.It is found that after the implementation of the new “Securities Law”, the trial time of class action cases is shorter, the probability of losing the lawsuit is higher, and the actual compensation accounts for a larger proportion of the amount of the lawsuit; compared with individual lawsuits, the market reaction of class actions is worse on the day of litigation announcement; once involved in a class action lawsuit, in order to hedge the negative impact of litigation, the company is more inclined to “hide” information in investor research, and investors obtain significantly less information about the company’s characteristics. Further mechanism analysis shows that although the company’s concealment behavior can produce the effect of “stabilizing” investor sentiment, thus playing a “masking effect” on the negative impact of class action on the company’s long-term and short-term performance, the company involved in the lawsuit cannot really “crossing the sea under camouflage”. Compared with the companies that violate the rules but have not been sued by the collective, after the promulgation of the new “Securities Law”, the short-term performance and long-term value of the companies that violate the rules and have been sued collectively are worse than before. After controlling endogeneity and conducing sensitivity analysis, the above conclusions are still valid.Due to the inherent imperfection of law, tort litigation and contract litigation, which are two means of private enforcement, are costly and unpredictable, and are not enough to prevent securities fraud. The introduction of public enforcement into the new “Securities Law” can effectively reduce the operation cost of the capital market; at the same time, the new “Securities Law” strengthens the relevant liability rules of information disclosure and investor recovery, promotes private enforcement, and thus promotes the development of the capital market. Based on the quasi-natural experiment of strengthening public enforcement in the new “Securities Law”, this paper provides empirical evidence for the above theory. The conclusion of this paper enriches the research on the motives, behaviors and corresponding economic consequences of corporate illegality in the capital market. It provides a reference for small and medium-sized investors to protect their legitimate rights and interests through the law and for companies to manage investor relations. It also provides inspiration for the realization of the change and innovation of legal means of securities order and the promotion of high-quality economic development.

Agent of Change: Adela Sloss-Vento by Cynthia E. Orozco

Reviewed by: Agent of Change: Adela Sloss-Vento by Cynthia E. Orozco Teresa Palomo Acosta Agent of Change: Adela Sloss-Vento. By Cynthia E. Orozco. (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2020. Pp. 310. Illustrations, notes, bibliography, index.) By 1970, Adela Sloss-Vento had authored more publications on civil rights than any other Mexican American woman. Guided by her Christian faith and her commitment to justice, she had developed over numerous decades into an unmatched advocate for immigrants, farm laborers, and women, firmly placing her at the center of the Mexican American struggle for civil rights. Her political activism is the soul of Cynthia E. Orozco's superb two-part book. Part one follows Sloss-Vento's decades-long journey as a civil rights leader, public intellectual, and feminist. Beginning at the age of twenty-six, she vigorously helped shape the Mexican American civil rights agenda in stages from 1927 to 1950, from 1950 to 1963, and from 1963 to 1978, remaining an influential voice until 1990. Part two expertly analyzes Sloss-Vento as "a beneficiary of modern gendered selfhood" (171) and provides insights into her role as a public intellectual. Sloss-Vento's commitment to la causa made her a collaborator with Alonso S. Perales, the primary founder of the League of United Latin [End Page 233] American Citizens (LULAC); an archivist of important Mexican American civil rights documents; and a uniquely gifted composer of the "art of lettered protest" (131). Orozco illustrates through extensive chapter sub-sections the overarching theme of her book, that Sloss-Vento was a consummate proponent of Mexican Americans' rights. For instance, she provided support for Comité Pro Defensa Escolar Del Rio, which was crucial to Salvatierra v. Del Rio Independent School District, the first class-action case brought by LULAC against segregated education in Texas. In her writings, Sloss-Vento denounced fascism and endorsed pan-Americanism and the Good Neighbor Policy with Mexico. Her prolific letters and opinion pieces in newspapers and her letters to public officials are noted throughout, illustrating the agenda she undertook. For instance, in a letter to the Valley Morning Star (Harlingen), she proclaimed that a Mrs. L. J. Ring "reveals a lack of Christianity and the lack of democratic principles" (33), while in an essay in El Heraldo of Corpus Christi, she attacked "hatred against people of Mexican descent" (61). In an essay in LULAC News, she abhorred the oppression of women within the Mexican American family, and she wrote to Governor Coke Stevenson about using the press and the law to support racial harmony "in the homes and in the schools" (60). Adela Sloss-Vento also promoted the Chicano movement. In 1967, for example, she supported the walkout by Elsa-Edcouch public school students who demanded classes in "Chicano and Mexican history" (84), and she endorsed La Raza Unida Party as a continuation of the political rights efforts she had entered decades before. In Agent of Change, Cynthia E. Orozco has marshalled in-depth materials that convincingly spell out how Adela Sloss-Vento took on the powerful and proved herself to be a committed, smart, and tough servant of her people. Through her actions and her innumerable writings, Sloss-Vento proclaimed the urgent necessity "to build a better America" (178). This essential and timely book reinforces her significance to that cause and to Mexican American history. Teresa Palomo Acosta Austin, Texas Copyright © 2020 The Texas State Historical Association

The Story of a Class: Uses of Narrative in Public Interest Class Actions Before Certification

Stories have power. When litigants in public interest class actions tell their stories, the narratives can advance the law and influence public debate. But before class members’ stories can vindicate civil rights on the merits, plaintiffs must overcome the hurdle of class certification. For decades, class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was not a significant challenge for plaintiffs seeking to litigate as a class. But recent restrictive procedural developments—including heightened standards for class certification—threaten the powerful stories that can be told through public interest class actions. Missing in the critical analysis of class action jurisprudence is any discussion of how advocates can use narrative techniques to meet that heightened certification standard. Similarly, law and narrative scholarship has devoted little attention to the class action. This article begins to fill that gap by engaging in a critical reading of two recent public interest class actions: one challenging family separations at the border, and one challenging the denial of abortion care to pregnant unaccompanied minors in immigration custody. The article identifies narrative choices that ultimately enable class certification and further storytelling in public interest class actions. The article argues that narrative theory can provide an important perspective on the debate over restrictive class action procedure, and makes recommendations for courts and lawyers to pay greater attention to narrative in class action cases.

Out of the Freezer and into the Policy Fire: Quandaries in Reproductive Cryopreservation.

The field of assisted reproduction is advancing rapidly and is ripe for regulation and guidance. In 2018, over four thousand frozen eggs and embryos were lost to approximately one thousand patients at Ahuja University Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, due to an accidental thaw of a cryopreservation tank. The precedent that will be set by the Ahuja class-action case is significant for both past events and future possibilities and is core to the discussion of policy involving the cryopreservation of gametes and embryos.

Fighting the Giants: Efforts in Holding Corporation Responsible for Environmental Damages in Indonesia

This paper focuses on examining environmental cases before the Indonesian courts from the past ten years. To be specific, this paper will study four major cases with regard private law, six major cases with regard to criminal law, and class action cases in Indonesia. This period of time explains trending increase of environmental cases before the courts. In this regard, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) becomes the main preference of settling the environmental disputes. However, ADR seems not able to bring justice to the fullest especially when it comes to the corporations. It is not justice to the fullest in the sense that there seems no deterrence ADR brings to the corporations when the corporations do indeed damages the environment. As the environmental awareness increases and at the same time, ADR seems fail to fulfill the expectation to save the environment, another way to bring justice emerges namely through various efforts in lawsuits. Nevertheless, such lawsuits are not perfect as there are varieties of results from Indonesian courts. This paper argues that such variety of decisions have been heavily influence by the availability of scientific data and the knowledge of the panel of judges. Specifically, in the case of class action lawsuit, those who defend the environment has limitation on resources usually initiate such lawsuit. Whereas, corporation that being sued is relatively have the capacity to face the trial due to its high financial resources. Nevertheless, “fighting the giants” has been the paradigm when it comes to pursue the responsibility of corporation of its wrongdoing especially environmental damages.

U.S. class-action case targets 9 PFAS makers

A firefighter is leading a class-action suit against nine manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The defendants named in the suit are 3M, Archroma, Arkema, Asahi Glass, Chemo...

Materi dan Prosedur Penetapan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok, Studi Perbandingan: Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat

Abstract. Background of this article is, although it was first emerged in Common Law system countries, the practice of class action has been growing in Indonesia. This mechanism brings an opportunity to simplified the court’ process and to reduce the risk of disparity judgements. This article found similarities and differences scope and procedure of certification in Indonesia and the USA. Before examining the case, a presiding judges, accordingly to Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2002 concerning Procedure of Class Action, have to determine whether the case is eligible to be examine as class action case. This procedure is universally well-known as certification mainly focuses on the fulfilment of class action’s substantive requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation and formal requirements. The similar requirements are also implemented in the USA accordingly to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 Class Action. However, in those countries have different procedure when it comes to legal remedy to the certification order, mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal, the role of judge in assisting poor litigants and determining counsel’s fee. This article recommends Indonesia has to amend the Supreme Court regulation to add provisions on legal remedy, and mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal.

The Class Action Awakens

For the past nine terms the Supreme Court has increased its focus on the law of class actions. In doing so, the Court has revised the law to better accord with a view of the class action as an exception to an idealized picture of litigation. This “exceptional” view of the class action has had a profound impact not only on class action law, but procedural and substantive law in general. However, in the October 2015 term the Court decided three class action cases which support an alternative, “functional” view of the class action, one that does not view the class action as exceptional, but as one of many equally permissible tools to serve the objectives of substantive law. This alternative view has the potential to have a similarly significant impact on the law, but it is not certain whether the Court will further develop this alternative, especially given its most recent class action decisions. This article discusses the development of the “exceptional” view of the class action, the awakening of a “functional” alternative view, and the uncertain path ahead.

Can and Should the New Third-Party Litigation Financing Come to Class Actions?

Abstract In the United States, there has been tremendous growth in a form of third-party litigation financing where investors buy pieces of lawsuits from plaintiffs. Many scholars believe that this new financing helps to balance the risk tolerance of plaintiffs and defendants and thereby facilitates the resolution of litigation in a way that more closely tracks the goals of the substantive law. In this Article, I ask whether these risk-balancing virtues of claim investing carry over into class action cases. This is a question that has not yet been addressed by scholars because many think it is not possible for financiers to buy pieces of class action lawsuits in the United States. But I show that such investments are neither impractical nor unethical; indeed, it appears that they are already here. It is therefore worth considering whether the investments confer the same social benefits they do in other cases. I argue that although class members do not need a risk transfer device in class action cases because they are almost always risk-neutral in light of their small losses, their lawyers do need such a device. Although this does not necessarily mean that claim investing is socially desirable overall in class actions, the social costs that have thus far been identified with claim investing seem modest compared to the benefits.

Which Statute Will Trump

A law can often be a double-edged sword—its mandate or protection of one right will sometimes come at the cost of another. Compounding this problem of unintended consequences is that laws do not operate in a vacuum. Instead, laws interact with other laws, and if they conflict, courts must determine which will prevail. Determining the validity of class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements will require reconciling the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements be enforced according to their terms against the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of employees’ right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of mutual aid and protection. The dispute over the validity of these agreements requires courts to determine which law and congressional policy should prevail. The National Labor Relations Board and circuit courts throughout the country have been unable to reach a uniform decision, which has prompted the United States Supreme Court to grant certiorari on a triad of cases concerning this issue. With a decision from the nation’s highest Court expected during the 2017–18 term, this Comment analyzes the background and legal arguments behind these competing statutes to determine how the Court is likely to rule. This Comment concludes that, given the Court’s previous rulings in arbitration and class-action cases and the recent Supreme Court confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court is likely to rule in favor of validating class-action waivers in employment arbitration agreements.

Shareholder-Initiated Lawsuits and Cross-Listed Firms: The Market Penalties of Securities Class Action Lawsuits

This paper examines the market penalties extracted by shareholders against firms that are alleged to have violated securities laws within the US. Using a sample of private securities class action cases brought against foreign firms that cross-list on the major US exchanges, this paper examines market penalties at violation disclosure, case filing, and settlement dates and finds that each event corresponds to an economically and statistically significant loss of value for the accused firm. On average I find that the violation results in a loss of more than 18% of market value, corresponding to an average of $575 million in dollars lost upon disclosure of the violation. When the disclosure, case filing, and settlement losses are combined, the losses average more than $740 million. More importantly, when compared to those of domestic firms, I find almost no significant differences in the market penalties of foreign and domestic firms at key dates around the violation of securities law. Further, an examination of the determinants of the reputational penalties assessed during the disclosure of a securities law violation indicates that reputational penalties are greater in cases where investors perceive the minority shareholder protection in the home country to be better.

Class Actions in the Federal Circuit

Class Actions in the Federal Circuit

On computing probabilities of dismissal of 10b-5 securities class-action cases

The main goal of this paper is to propose a probability model for computing probabilities of dismissal of 10b-5 securities class-action cases filed in United States Federal district courts. By dismissal, we mean dismissal with prejudice in response to the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, and not eventual dismissal after the discovery process. The proposed probability model is a hybrid of two widely-used methods: logistic regression, and naïve Bayes. Using a dataset of 925 10b-5 securities class-action cases filed between 2002 and 2010, we show that the proposed hybrid model has the potential of computing better probabilities than either LR or NB models. By better, we mean lower root mean square errors of probabilities of dismissal. The proposed hybrid model uses the following features: allegations of generally accepted accounting principles violations, allegations of lack of internal control, bankruptcy filing during the class period, allegations of Section 11 violations of Securities Act of 1933, and short-term drop in stock price. Our model is useful for those insurance companies which underwrite Directors and Officers liability policy.

Statistical issues arising in class action cases: a reanalysis of the statistical evidence inDukesv.Wal-Mart II

Statistical issues arising in class action cases: a reanalysis of the statistical evidence in<i>Dukes</i>v.<i>Wal-Mart II</i>

Employee Class Actions Four Years AfterWal-Mart v. Dukes

LAWSUITS arising out of the workplace are one of the fastest growing areas of litigation the country today. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes1 was anticipated bring the growth of class actions the employment context under control. In the immediate aftermath of Dukes, commentators predicted that the decision would result significant, drastic reduction employee driven class-action claims,2 and Dukes unquestionably raise[d] the bar for plaintiffs seeking class certification and, accord- ingly, constitute [d] win for because plaintiffs' attorneys now face, much greater obstacles when pursuing class actions.3The limitations to class action claims of discrimination provided Dukes have had far-reaching implications for Title VII claims and class action lawsuits brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. But the landmark decision not led to the demise of the class action, or even reduction employment class actions.4 Instead, the employment class action case has merely taken on new face. Following Dukes, employment class actions are now comprised of smaller, regional class and are framed more narrowly, in terms of single policy or practice that applies to the entire class.5This article reviews Dukes and the circuit court employment class certification decisions that have evolved from it and other landmark Supreme Court decisions impacting employment related class actions. While the trend remains favorable to employers, four years after Dukes, plaintiffs attorneys have begun to have success with new tactics. As result, the ultimate legacy of Dukes the employment law context remains uncertain.I. Dukes and its PredecessorsA. General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon6In the post -Dukes era of class-action jurisprudence and it is nearly impossible to find an opinion or article that does not use the phrase analysis, phrase many lawyers associate with Dukes. Despite the spike popularity of the phrase post -Dukes, it was not introduced by the Court that decision, but was first coined more than twenty years earlier General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon. In Falcon, the Court held, a Title VII class action, like any other class action, only be certified if the trial court is satisfied, after rigorous that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.7In Falcon, like Dukes, the trial court certified an employment discrimination class action. The class included some members who were denied promotion allegedly because they were MexicanAmerican. Other members of the class were denied being hired altogether allegedly because of their race. All members were included the same class based on an the rule that named plaintiff employee complaining of one allegedly discriminatory practice could represent class members complaining of different practice.8 This across the board rule was based on presumption that all the class claims were fairly encompassed within the named plaintiff s claim, satisfying Rule 23(a)(3) typicality. The Supreme Court rejected the rule and its presumption of discrimination. In reversing the Fifth Circuit's affirmation of class certification, the Court made clear that when considering class certification, [ajctual, not presumed, conformance with Rule 23(a) remains ... indispensable,9 and that a Title VII class action, like any other class action, only be certified if the trial court is satisfied, after rigorous that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) have been satisfied.10 The Court noted that carrying out this mandate it may be necessary for the court to probe behind the pleadings before coming to rest on the certification question.11The Court's opinion Falcon signaled the potential for shift the Court's treatment of class certification. Unlike Dukes, Falcon did not have the impact on lower federal courts that its recent decisions indicate the Supreme Court intended, driven largely by concern that courts would be too willing to decide questions of certification with an eye to the underlying merits of the case. …

Removal Of Class Actions: What Danger Lurks InShady Grove

IN 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered a landmark decision in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance. (1) The case presented an extraordinarily complex combination of procedural issues, primarily concerning a crossroads between federal and state law in the context of class certification. The result was nothing short of bewildering. In a plurality opinion, a majority agreed that a New York statute prohibiting class actions in suits seeking penalties or statutory minimum damages was preempted by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (2) As a result, the petitioner's suit could proceed as a class action in federal court, while ironically it not have been able to do so in state court. In the opening opinion, Justice Scalia gave a broad, sweeping application of Rule 23, finding that it unambiguously authorizes any plaintiff, in any federal civil proceeding, to maintain a class action if the Rules' prerequisites are met. (3) But while Justice Stevens agreed with the result in this particular case, he disagreed with Justice Scalia's rationale, opining that if a federal procedural rule would displace a state law that is procedural in the ordinary use of the term but is so intertwined with a state right or remedy that it functions to define the scope of the state-created right, then the federal procedural rule cannot govern such a case. (4) Following Shady Grove, depending upon the proclivity of a district court to apply Justice Scalia's rigid, FRCP-deferential rationale, or Justice Stevens's more pragmatic theory, a motion for class certification could have strikingly different odds of success. If a district court follows Justice Scalia's approach, then the decision to remove a putative class action to federal court result in the loss of the very grounds--a state law prohibiting class certification--that otherwise defeat class certification in state court. However, should a district court follow Justice Stevens's approach, that same state law might apply even after removal, depending on whether it is so intertwined with the ability to proceed as a class action that it functions to define the scope of this right. Thus, before removing a putative class action, defense attorneys must be wary of the hidden dangers that lurk in the wake of Shady Grove. Part I of this Article will discuss the Shady Grove decision in further detail, outlining the factual and procedural background, the majority's judgment, and the divergence between Justice Scalia and Justice Stevens on the issue of whether Rule 23 preempts every state law regarding class actions. Part II will examine the practical effect that judges employing Justice Scalia's rationale will have on the future of class actions, and will analyze recent court decisions affected by this reasoning. Part III will explore the practical effect that courts using Justice Stevens's approach will have in forthcoming class action cases, and outline a series of cases that were determined under this method. This Article should provide defense practitioners with a sense of awareness when faced with the decision of whether to remove a class action to federal court, including the possibility that, ironically, this could result in certification of a class that otherwise might have been defeated in state court. I. The Shady Grove Decision A. Background The underlying dispute arose when a medical facility, Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, attempted to revive a $5 million class action suit it had filed in federal court against Allstate Insurance Co. (5) In the suit, Shady Grove contended that Allstate regularly failed to provide timely payments of claims under a New York law that required insurance companies to pay legitimate claims within thirty days of receipt. (6) Alleging that Allstate routinely refused to pay interest on overdue benefits, and invoking the Class Action Fairness Act, Shady Grove sought relief on behalf of itself and a class of all others to whom Allstate owed interest. …

Vindicating Bankruptcy Rights

Thousands of consumer debtors pass through the bankruptcy process each year. Although their cases are legally complex, the bankruptcy system handles them in a routinized manner. Creditor and debtor attorneys rely heavily on forms in place of individualized pleadings, and many aspects of a debtor’s case are designed to function without direct judicial oversight. This system functions well, but it is not without limitation. Certain repeat players — large institutional lenders with hundreds of borrowers in bankruptcy — have exploited the absence of direct oversight to tilt the consumer bankruptcy process in their favor.This article is the second portion of my project on the use of class litigation to curb systematic creditor overreaching in bankruptcy. It considers the unique set of challenges presented by the class action device: namely, the rigorous requirements for class certification and the force of class action waivers in arbitration agreements. It finds that the prototypical debtor class action remains viable in the modern, anti-class-action framework. First, the force of class arbitration waivers can be muted in bankruptcy, as bankruptcy courts have broad discretion to deny arbitration of a matter when arbitration would “inherent[ly] conflict” with bankruptcy's aims. This article argues that courts should marshal their considerable discretion in applying the “inherent-conflict” analysis to deny arbitration of debtor class action proceedings when a class arbitration waiver is present. Second, debtor class action cases are strong candidates to run the ever-tightening gantlet of class certification.

Amicus Briefs of the National Association of Consumer Advocates in &lt;i&gt;Day v. Persels &amp; Associates&lt;/i&gt;, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013)

Amicus Briefs of the National Association of Consumer Advocates in &lt;i&gt;Day v. Persels &amp; Associates&lt;/i&gt;, 729 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2013)