The Business Case for Opting Out of High Value Class Actions
The fact that remaining in the class is still the default is not surprising. However, this is arguably changing and will continue to do so as GCs and CFOs face growing economic pressure to maximize the value they extract from their companies' litigation assets.
November 14, 2022 at 08:10 AM
6 minute read
In the United States, anyone that has been harmed by conduct that is the subject of a class action has two options: Choose to remain a member of the class or opt out and bring an action as an individual plaintiff.
Having spent well over two decades in-house, I'm all too familiar with the challenges a GC faces in making the decision to pursue a claim, opt-out or otherwise. Although many factors are at play, too often one consideration—budget—trumps all. Even in the face of egregious behavior by a defendant, it is hard to justify putting limited legal budget at risk to pursue a claim that might lose. This is even more difficult in a commercial class action, where the option to remain in the class seems like the safest (and most budget friendly) option. But when a company has a valuable class action claim, it is incumbent upon a GC to carefully weigh her company's risk and cost tolerance against the obligation to maximize recoveries—and to thoroughly examine what tools might make an opt-out strategy viable.
Research conducted in June 2022 based on surveys conducted with 150 GCs and heads of litigation reveals that for high value claims, companies that opt out recover significantly more damages than they would by remaining in the class. "A report on class action recoveries," Burford Capital, September 2022.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEuropean, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
Secrecy Or Prejudice: Panelists Debate Transparency in Litigation Financing Arrangements
'Shocked': Hoylman-Sigal Suggests New Solutions for Elected Officials' Burgeoning Legal Defense Costs
Insurers Extend List of RICO Suits Alleging Widespread Fraud by New York Personal Injury Firms
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250