|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > August 2006 > class action law suit
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
class action law suit
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>
> Enriching lawyers at the expense of customers.
>
That about sums it up. From the article:
Earlier this month, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million
fine against Cingular that had been ordered in 2004 by the California Public
Utilities Commission.
Guess where that 12 million comes from. Customers! The people suing are
stupid! In the end a customer will not see over 50-100 bucks in a class
action suite like this in fact in the end it will likely end up settled with
people getting extra minutes for a year or free text messaging. The only
people that will win in this suit are the lawyers and they will make
millions.
| |
|
| Joe wrote:
> That about sums it up. From the article:
>
> Earlier this month, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1 million
> fine against Cingular that had been ordered in 2004 by the California Public
> Utilities Commission.
>
> Guess where that 12 million comes from. Customers!
Actually the $12 million will come from shareholders in the form of a
lower stock price and lower dividends (if Cingular's owners stock's have
dividends).
Pricing of wireless service is set by the market. You can't raise prices
simply because expenses go up, or your customers will go to the
competition. Similarly, you don't lower prices when your expenses go
down, you simply make higher profits.
> The people suing are
> stupid! In the end a customer will not see over 50-100 bucks in a class
> action suite like this in fact in the end it will likely end up settled with
> people getting extra minutes for a year or free text messaging.
In reality, if successful, the members of the class will get their ETF's
back and possibly the cost of equipment, if they desire. Typically you
get a choice of awards, either a credit on your bill if you stay, or a
refund of any ETF fees and related expenses if you leave.
> The only
> people that will win in this suit are the lawyers and they will make
> millions.
Typical ignorant lawyer-basher. The lawyers will do well if the lawsuit
is successful, that's the whole impetus behind a class action. If they
lose, they've wasted their time and effort. The lawyers have to split
their percentage with a lot fewer people, so they make a lot more per
person, but the customers will get the bulk of the money.
If you read the lawsuit, you'll see that everything that was alleged is
actually true, so Cingular is almost certain to settle out of court.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-27, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:19:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c830ce$0$96210$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Joe wrote:
>
>Actually the $12 million will come from shareholders in the form of a
>lower stock price and lower dividends (if Cingular's owners stock's have
>dividends).
>
>Pricing of wireless service is set by the market. You can't raise prices
>simply because expenses go up, or your customers will go to the
>competition. Similarly, you don't lower prices when your expenses go
>down, you simply make higher profits.
In actuality there's considerable pricing flexibility in the market (as
should be obvious to anyone paying attention to the different pricing
structures), so the cost will be paid by customers, as qualified
economists would tell you.
>
>In reality, if successful, the members of the class will get their ETF's
>back and possibly the cost of equipment, if they desire. Typically you
>get a choice of awards, either a credit on your bill if you stay, or a
>refund of any ETF fees and related expenses if you leave.
The most likely outcome, based on recent class action settlements, would
be some sort of token coupon, perhaps nothing more than a bucket of
rollover minutes.
>
>Typical ignorant lawyer-basher. The lawyers will do well if the lawsuit
>is successful, that's the whole impetus behind a class action. If they
>lose, they've wasted their time and effort. The lawyers have to split
>their percentage with a lot fewer people, so they make a lot more per
>person, but the customers will get the bulk of the money.
That's not what typically happens, as anyone that's been paying
attention to actual settlements knows.
>If you read the lawsuit, you'll see that everything that was alleged is
>actually true, so Cingular is almost certain to settle out of court.
Now you're judge and jury. Cute. Now back to reality:
Class Action Dilemmas
Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
RAND Corporation
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_...69.1/index.html>
Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.
Also...
New Class Action Study
<http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>
In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.
Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
Report 3.)
Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
Bernstein).
In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
require a broader, more systemic reform.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| I was included in a class action lawsuit against Verizon (or Bell
Atlantin). The cause had somthing to do with rounded minutes or
something. All the subscribers got was something like $3 off an
accessory costing $15 or more. The ones who got anything were the
LAWYERS. The suits serve the lawyers (who got cash) and the company
itself who gave out coupons unlikely to be redeemed. It redeemed they
still made a (smaller) profit selling accessories.
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:19:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote in < 44c830ce$0$96210$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>
> In actuality there's considerable pricing flexibility in the market (as
> should be obvious to anyone paying attention to the different pricing
> structures), so the cost will be paid by customers, as qualified
> economists would tell you.
>
>
> The most likely outcome, based on recent class action settlements, would
> be some sort of token coupon, perhaps nothing more than a bucket of
> rollover minutes.
>
>
> That's not what typically happens, as anyone that's been paying
> attention to actual settlements knows.
>
>
> Now you're judge and jury. Cute. Now back to reality:
>
> Class Action Dilemmas
> Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
> RAND Corporation
> <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_...69.1/index.html>
>
> Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
> many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
> controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
> by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
> being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
> resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
> Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
> worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
> than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
> litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
> Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
> quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
> controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
> it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
> among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
> agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
> that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
> more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
> scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
> Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
> outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
> the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
> goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.
>
> Also...
>
> New Class Action Study
> <http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>
>
> In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
> and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
> litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
> these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
> the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
> Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
> average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
> was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
> recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.
>
> Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
> significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
> litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
> opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
> litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
> ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
> actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
> mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
> cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
> in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
> 3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
> Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
> Report 3.)
>
> Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
> does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
> litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
> force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
> regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
> Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
> which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
> showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
> suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
> Bernstein).
>
> In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
> is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
> Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
> significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
> that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
> modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
> require a broader, more systemic reform.
>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-27, 10:33 am |
| SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually the $12 million will come from shareholders in the form of a
> lower stock price and lower dividends (if Cingular's owners stock's have
> dividends).
>
While it may directly affect dividends, the money does not come out of the
market capitalization [and thust the stock price]. It may come out of their
equity, and thus stock price MAY follow, but it may not. Reduced equity can
be eaten if cash reserves exist to pay it or if debt is taken on. The latter
would likely impact product pricing eventually ... or reduce their service in
other areas like network expansion or maintenance.
> Pricing of wireless service is set by the market. You can't raise prices
> simply because expenses go up, or your customers will go to the
> competition. Similarly, you don't lower prices when your expenses go
> down, you simply make higher profits.
Cingular is part of the market, and thus, has an influence on the price of its
services. If people start suing wireless carriers frivolously, the prices
will go up or the product quality will go down.
>
>
> In reality, if successful, the members of the class will get their ETF's
> back and possibly the cost of equipment, if they desire. Typically you
> get a choice of awards, either a credit on your bill if you stay, or a
> refund of any ETF fees and related expenses if you leave.
They might get these things. It all depends upon the settlement agreed too
.... or the verdict and damages if not settled. These things tend to nearly
always be settled.
>
>
> Typical ignorant lawyer-basher. The lawyers will do well if the lawsuit
> is successful, that's the whole impetus behind a class action. If they
> lose, they've wasted their time and effort. The lawyers have to split
> their percentage with a lot fewer people, so they make a lot more per
> person, but the customers will get the bulk of the money.
>
Are you a lawyer? Most class members receive very little for participation.
Most lawyers receive a life style increase for their participation. Guess who
is making out better; the lawyers or the victims.
> If you read the lawsuit, you'll see that everything that was alleged is
> actually true, so Cingular is almost certain to settle out of court.
Even when not true, they tend to settle ... because lawyers are expensive,
even when defending a frivolous suit [which I am not saying this is].
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-27, 10:33 am |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> That's not what typically happens, as anyone that's been paying
> attention to actual settlements knows.
>
Indeed, which is why so many people are pushing torte reform. I am not sure
that drug companies should have limitted damages though, but I believe there
probably should be a limit on vindictive punitive damages.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed, which is why so many people are pushing torte reform.
It's not "many people" that are pushing torte <sic> reform, it's the
corporations that get caught doing something illegal and don't like
having to ante up that are pushing it.
The real purpose of so-called "tort reform," is to shield large
corporations, from having to pay compensation to consumers for the harm
incurred from fraud, negligence, and product liability. They've duped
many people into believing that there has been a huge explosion in the
number of tort filings, when in fact the number of filings has been
steadily declining.
Incidentally, a torte is a type of a cake; I think you meant tort,
unless you are trying to change the way in which cakes are made.
| |
|
| Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
> Cingular is part of the market, and thus, has an influence on the price of its
> services. If people start suing wireless carriers frivolously, the prices
> will go up or the product quality will go down.
No, if the lawsuits are truly frivolous, the defendant will not only
win, but will recover legal costs from the plaintiff. It's only if _all_
the carriers start losing non-frivolous lawsuits that, their expenses
rise across the board, and they can try to all raise prices. Even this
is unlikely to occur, as the carriers know that their pricing affects
the number of subscribers. When wireless phone service was a hundred
dollars a month, there were very few subscribers. When if dropped to $30
a month, it became much more ubiquitous.
> Are you a lawyer? Most class members receive very little for
participation.
> Most lawyers receive a life style increase for their participation.
Well of course. There are millions of people in some of these class
actions, but only a few lawyers. In a typical 70/30 split, the members
of the class get a lot more of the award, but less per person.
> Guess who is making out better; the lawyers or the victims.
Depending on your view, the beauty of, or the problem with, class
actions, is that they eventually have an effect on forcing a behavior
change of the corporation. We've already seen this with wireless
carriers, including Cingular and Verizon.
> Even when not true, they tend to settle ... because lawyers are
expensive,
> even when defending a frivolous suit [which I am not saying this is].
If it's truly frivolous, then the defendants won't settle, but a good
class action lawyer won't take a frivolous case in the first place
because he (or she) can be ordered to pay the legal costs of the
defendants when the case is thrown out. This can end up be extremely
expensive, hundreds of thousands of dollars. I was just involved, on the
defense side, in a frivolous lawsuit. The judge threw it out, and now
we're going after the company behind the lawsuit, as well as the stooge
plaintiff, for legal costs. It's a long process, but the plaintiffs have
a lot of money, and may settle if our side agrees to shut up about what
they did.
What needs to be stopped are the frivolous personal injury lawsuits, not
the class action lawsuits.
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
|
"Joe" <nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:naTxg.19259$ZH1.17445@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
> That about sums it up. From the article:
>
> Earlier this month, a California state appeals court upheld a $12.1
> million fine against Cingular that had been ordered in 2004 by the
> California Public Utilities Commission.
>
> Guess where that 12 million comes from. Customers! The people suing are
> stupid! In the end a customer will not see over 50-100 bucks in a class
> action suite like this in fact in the end it will likely end up settled
> with people getting extra minutes for a year or free text messaging. The
> only people that will win in this suit are the lawyers and they will make
> millions.
That kind of thinking is what big corporations hope for.
Just sitting back and letting them rip you off is not the answer. and they
should be held accountable. The desired result of the lawsuit should not be
to get rich, it should be to put the company on track and make they provide
what you are paying for.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:53 -0400, "PC Medic" <not@home.com> wrote in
<j1ayg.717$W93.149@dukeread05>:
>"Joe" <nospam@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:naTxg.19259$ZH1.17445@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>
>That kind of thinking is what big corporations hope for.
>Just sitting back and letting them rip you off is not the answer. and they
>should be held accountable. The desired result of the lawsuit should not be
>to get rich, it should be to put the company on track and make they provide
>what you are paying for.
Unfortunately, the current system doesn't accomplish that.
Class Action Dilemmas
Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
RAND Corporation
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_...69.1/index.html>
Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.
Also...
New Class Action Study
<http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>
In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.
Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
Report 3.)
Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
Bernstein).
In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
require a broader, more systemic reform.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:47:49 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<9u3yg.28272$ce.7378@fe12.usenetserver.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Indeed, which is why so many people are pushing torte reform. I am not sure
>that drug companies should have limitted damages though, but I believe there
>probably should be a limit on vindictive punitive damages.
The problem is that class action damages are so potentially huge that
companies can't really risk litigating even when the case against them
isn't strong. Class action lawyers know this of course, and that all
they need is a case not so weak that it won't even get started to have a
gun to the head of the company. It's a kind of legal (in both senses of
the word) extortion. Capping damages to some reasonable level and
requiring a higher showing before certifying a class would go a long way
toward fixing this problem.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:45:08 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<Er3yg.39150$tk3.30450@fe67.usenetserver.com>:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>Even when not true, they tend to settle ... because lawyers are expensive,
>even when defending a frivolous suit [which I am not saying this is].
The bigger problem is the risk of a huge damage award, which can
severely hurt the financial value of a company while a case drags on.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Scott 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:6ocgc2592m8erep
on38nl6angd4tlp8fg5@
4ax.com...
>
> In actuality there's considerable pricing flexibility in the market (as
> should be obvious to anyone paying attention to the different pricing
> structures), so the cost will be paid by customers, as qualified
> economists would tell you.
Too bad you don't know any.
>
>
> The most likely outcome, based on recent class action settlements, would
> be some sort of token coupon, perhaps nothing more than a bucket of
> rollover minutes.
>
>
> That's not what typically happens, as anyone that's been paying
> attention to actual settlements knows.
>
>
> Now you're judge and jury. Cute. Now back to reality:
>
> Class Action Dilemmas
> Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
> RAND Corporation
<snip>
Neither link was specific to the case, Skippy. I guess this was some of
that information you gained from the Internet and not from any practical
experience of your own.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:56gic25v2agiv4i
290rgu63os9ftb7h7ua@
4ax.com...
>
> Class Action Dilemmas
> Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
>
Spamming again, Johnny? Your beloved charter forbids that in this group.
Please cease immediately.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> Neither link was specific to the case, Skippy. I guess this was some of
> that information you gained from the Internet and not from any practical
> experience of your own.
Wouldn't matter, as Rand has no credibility--it's a corporate mouthpiece.
You can get an idea of the outcome of class actions by looking at the
Verizon V710 settlement. You got the choice of:
a) a $25 credit
b) terminate service with no ETF and return the phone and accessories
for a full refund.
c) keep your service, return the phone and accessories and apply the
cost to a new phone.
The important thing to realize is the Verizon couldn't say, "gee we
spent x millions of dollars on this lawsuit and on settlement costs,
lets add up our total costs and divide it by the number of customers,
and raise prices so we can get back that money. Anyone that thinks that
that's how pricing works has got a lot to learn about business. Setting
proper pricing is extremely complex, you don't want to leave money on
the table, nor do you want to lose profitable customers with pricing
that is too high. That's why in many industries, there are so many
different prices for the same product.
We had one customer at a semiconductor company that I worked for, that
wanted to set the price they would pay by adding up the number of gates
in an ASIC, and paying per gate. Uh, sorry, it doesn't work that way.
The same customer wanted a guarantee that they would always pay at least
5% less than any other customer was paying. That's the kind of customer
you tell to get lost, then they come back begging for product when
there's a shortage.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-27, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44c97033$0$9624
0$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't matter, as Rand has no credibility--it's a corporate mouthpiece.
>
> You can get an idea of the outcome of class actions by looking at the
> Verizon V710 settlement. You got the choice of:
>
> a) a $25 credit
>
> b) terminate service with no ETF and return the phone and accessories for
> a full refund.
>
> c) keep your service, return the phone and accessories and apply the cost
> to a new phone.
What gets me is that the purpose of the class action was to correct an
implied issue and the options above all provide some form of remedy to that
issue- the latter two actually completely resolve the issue. Those that
complain about a settlement like this are the reason for the problem with
class actions- they expect to gain from the action and not simply be made
whole. The courts have become the next best thing to the lottery in many
peoples' eyes.
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> What gets me is that the purpose of the class action was to correct an
> implied issue and the options above all provide some form of remedy to that
> issue- the latter two actually completely resolve the issue. Those that
> complain about a settlement like this are the reason for the problem with
> class actions- they expect to gain from the action and not simply be made
> whole. The courts have become the next best thing to the lottery in many
> peoples' eyes.
You may get an occasional instance where the plaintiff gains more than
being made whole, i.e. in the mass torts for pharmaceuticals, but in
those cases it's difficult to put a price on the permanent injury or death.
In most cases, as in the Verizon case, the subscriber is made whole, and
the corporation at least discloses what they are doing in advance, if
they don't plan to actually change the underlying action that
perpetuated the lawsuit.
You get an occasional award that seems all out of proportion, and people
latch onto these as examples of why tort reform is desperately needed.
In many cases it's the corporations that were affected by the lawsuit
that are behind the attempts to try to paint the result as excessive,
even when it isn't. How many people actually read the facts on the
McDonald's coffee case before forming judgement?
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-28, 10:33 am |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is that class action damages are so potentially huge that
> companies can't really risk litigating even when the case against them
> isn't strong. Class action lawyers know this of course, and that all
> they need is a case not so weak that it won't even get started to have a
> gun to the head of the company. It's a kind of legal (in both senses of
> the word) extortion. Capping damages to some reasonable level and
> requiring a higher showing before certifying a class would go a long way
> toward fixing this problem.
>
In short, it is "cutting their losses". It is costing all American consumers
dearly.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-28, 10:33 am |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:45:08 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <Er3yg.39150$tk3.30450@fe67.usenetserver.com>:
>
>
>
> The bigger problem is the risk of a huge damage award, which can
> severely hurt the financial value of a company while a case drags on.
>
Presenting appeal after appeal. Consider the sky rocketting cost of
malpractice insurance. St. Paul Companies, a once mega player in the
business, just got out of it because there are too many people out there
lawyering up with monetary drool on their muzzles ... attacking because they
see weakness rather than misdeed. Sounds like rabies to me.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-28, 10:33 am |
| PC Medic <not@home.com> wrote:
> That kind of thinking is what big corporations hope for.
> Just sitting back and letting them rip you off is not the answer. and they
> should be held accountable. The desired result of the lawsuit should not be
> to get rich, it should be to put the company on track and make they provide
> what you are paying for.
>
Of course they should, if there really is misdeed. Damages however, have
grown over the years to feed the vulture like litigators ... and it is this
which makes even valid complaints a bit of a problem. There are too many
cases where greedy lawyers see an chance to develop a problem from nothing and
then to go looking for a class to match it -- a grand form of ambulance
chasing.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Jack Zwick 2006-07-28, 10:33 am |
| In article < 44c9962e$0$96232$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Scott wrote:
>
>
> You may get an occasional instance where the plaintiff gains more than
> being made whole, i.e. in the mass torts for pharmaceuticals, but in
> those cases it's difficult to put a price on the permanent injury or death.
It's a freakin lottery with too many Judges allowing in junk science.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. The Vioxx litigation is an
example. Keep it up and all your new drugs will disappear.
| |
|
| Jack Zwick wrote:
> It's a freakin lottery with too many Judges allowing in junk science.
> Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a fallacy. The Vioxx litigation is an
> example. Keep it up and all your new drugs will disappear.
In the case of VIOXX, it was the FDA's expedited review process that
allowed the drug on the market prior to the drug trials being completed.
You've got pressure from the drug companies for faster reviews, so they
can gain an advantage over competitors, but with this comes the risk
that side effects will not be fully understood before the drug is on the
market.
It was not junk science that was the cause of VIOXX being withdrawn,
Merck withdrew it because of the results of one of the drug trials that
was still being conducted after the drug was approved.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-28, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:28:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44ca2d1c$0$96231$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Jack Zwick wrote:
>
>
>In the case of VIOXX, it was the FDA's expedited review process that
>allowed the drug on the market prior to the drug trials being completed.
>
>You've got pressure from the drug companies for faster reviews, so they
>can gain an advantage over competitors, but with this comes the risk
>that side effects will not be fully understood before the drug is on the
>market.
>
>It was not junk science that was the cause of VIOXX being withdrawn,
>Merck withdrew it because of the results of one of the drug trials that
>was still being conducted after the drug was approved.
The real problem is that Merck dismissed early warnings of problems (the
VIGOR study) with Vioxx (Rofecoxib) in its haste for fast profits.
Outside scientists had warned Merck about this even before VIGOR was
published. In addition, it appears that adverse data was withheld from
the VIGOR results.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-28, 3:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> The real problem is that Merck dismissed early warnings of problems (the
> VIGOR study) with Vioxx (Rofecoxib) in its haste for fast profits.
> Outside scientists had warned Merck about this even before VIGOR was
> published. In addition, it appears that adverse data was withheld from
> the VIGOR results.
>
Sounds like the Big Dig and their funky bolts. Damn Mafia.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-28, 3:33 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:59:47 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<ngsyg.47300$wy2.22306@fe62.usenetserver.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Sounds like the Big Dig and their funky bolts. Damn Mafia.
Damn Boston politics, which is incredibly corrupt. When I was at MIT we
had the big Boston Commons Garage scandal, among others, so the Big Dig
problems are no great surprise.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-28, 10:33 pm |
| On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:09:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<q0oyg.31127$my2.6721@fe48.usenetserver.com>:
>PC Medic <not@home.com> wrote:
>
>Of course they should, if there really is misdeed. Damages however, have
>grown over the years to feed the vulture like litigators ... and it is this
>which makes even valid complaints a bit of a problem. There are too many
>cases where greedy lawyers see an chance to develop a problem from nothing and
>then to go looking for a class to match it -- a grand form of ambulance
>chasing.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5223330.stm>
Google click-fraud deal approved
...
Under the terms of the settlement, Google will give advertising
credits worth $4.50 for every $1,000 spent on advertising at its
website.
Miller County Circuit Judge Joe Griffin called the settlement "fair,
reasonable and adequate".
According to the Press Association, the only people who will get
money from the settlement are the lawyers, who are due to split $30m
in fees.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-29, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:913lc2tv84de1cd
dqvdij91vbe8uetlr8c@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:09:42 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <q0oyg.31127$my2.6721@fe48.usenetserver.com>:
>
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5223330.stm>
>
> Google click-fraud deal approved
>
> ...
>
> Under the terms of the settlement, Google will give advertising
> credits worth $4.50 for every $1,000 spent on advertising at its
> website.
>
> Miller County Circuit Judge Joe Griffin called the settlement "fair,
> reasonable and adequate".
>
And it probably is as a majority of the clicks were legit.
> According to the Press Association, the only people who will get
> money from the settlement are the lawyers, who are due to split $30m
> in fees.
>
Well maybe some of the people that can afford good lawyers should get off
their a$$ and hire them before things reach the 'class-action buzzards then.
| |
|
| PC Medic wrote:
> Well maybe some of the people that can afford good lawyers should get off
> their a$$ and hire them before things reach the 'class-action buzzards then.
It just isn't practical to do this when there's several million people
that have each experienced a loss of only a few hundred dollars.
The "greedy lawyer" mantra is trotted out on a regular basis, but in
fact a class-action is the only solution when the per person loss is too
small to make it worthwhile to sue on an individual basis. The fact that
say 10 million people each get $25, while three law firms split $10
million in fees, is really moot, yet there are fools that try to spin it
like "you get $25 while the lawyers each get $3 million dollars." If
there were no payback for the lawyers, the people that experienced the
loss would have no way to made whole again.
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-30, 3:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44cbea3d$0$9623
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
>
> It just isn't practical to do this when there's several million people
> that have each experienced a loss of only a few hundred dollars.
>
It is if you have principals, but then there are few people around with
money AND principals :0)
> The "greedy lawyer" mantra is trotted out on a regular basis, but in fact
> a class-action is the only solution when the per person loss is too small
> to make it worthwhile to sue on an individual basis. The fact that say 10
> million people each get $25, while three law firms split $10 million in
> fees, is really moot, yet there are fools that try to spin it like "you
> get $25 while the lawyers each get $3 million dollars." If there were no
> payback for the lawyers, the people that experienced the loss would have
> no way to made whole again.
As you stated above most have only lost a few hundred dollars and based on
that, should not receive much more than their actual losses. The lawyers of
course are entitled to more as they did the leg work, though I agree that
some reasonable limits to their fees do need to be set.
| |
|
| PC Medic wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44cbea3d$0$9623
1$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> It is if you have principals, but then there are few people around with
> money AND principals :0)
I should hope so. It would be impractical to have your own principals.
However many people do have principles, but that doesn't mean that
they're stupid enough to sue a company over $300, when their legal
costs, and the time and trouble would far exceed their recovery.
Actually it might be amusing to see a carrier hit with twenty million
lawsuits in small claims court!
> As you stated above most have only lost a few hundred dollars and based on
> that, should not receive much more than their actual losses. The lawyers of
> course are entitled to more as they did the leg work, though I agree that
> some reasonable limits to their fees do need to be set.
The judge decides how much the lawyers get for their legal costs, and
can limit the percentage of the recovery, even if the members of the
class agreed to an unreasonable percentage.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-30, 10:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:16:41 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44cd2fc9$0$96187$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>PC Medic wrote:
>
>The judge decides how much the lawyers get for their legal costs, and
>can limit the percentage of the recovery, even if the members of the
>class agreed to an unreasonable percentage.
The members of the class aren't consulted. The attorneys make a fee app
(application, backed up by documentation). The judge, who is almost
always a lawyer, almost always approves the fee app.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-30, 10:33 pm |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:44cd2fc9$0$9618
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> PC Medic wrote:
>
> I should hope so. It would be impractical to have your own principals.
>
> However many people do have principles, but that doesn't mean that they're
> stupid enough to sue a company over $300, when their legal costs, and the
> time and trouble would far exceed their recovery.
>
> Actually it might be amusing to see a carrier hit with twenty million
> lawsuits in small claims court!
>
It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them. And, in
most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
seeking in small claims court.
>
> The judge decides how much the lawyers get for their legal costs, and can
> limit the percentage of the recovery, even if the members of the class
> agreed to an unreasonable percentage.
Well considering some of the 'fees' these class action lawyers end up with,
makes you wonder about the integrity of a lot of judges as well.
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-31, 10:33 am |
| PC Medic <pcmedic2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well considering some of the 'fees' these class action lawyers end up with,
> makes you wonder about the integrity of a lot of judges as well.
>
Don't forget that we live in a new fangled democracy that our fore fathers
would abhor. That is where a person or entity gets to vote with dollars
rather than rights. Dollars are the almighty political voting tool. We are
the most corrupt nation on Earth (well, with any real GDP that is) short of
the historical Roman Empire. Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| Thurman 2006-07-31, 10:33 am |
|
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PQmzg.26191$fh.6070@fe58.usenetserver.com...
> PC Medic <pcmedic2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Don't forget that we live in a new fangled democracy that our fore fathers
> would abhor. That is where a person or entity gets to vote with dollars
> rather than rights. Dollars are the almighty political voting tool. We
> are
> the most corrupt nation on Earth (well, with any real GDP that is) short
> of
> the historical Roman Empire. Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
> state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.
While doing some research about 14 years ago, I discovered Japan has one
lawyer per 10,000 people. Curious, I looked for the U.S. ratio. It's one
lawyer per 300 people.
Divide what you would call an average income for an attorney, by 300 to
determine your 'monthly burden'. Like taxes, it's a hidden fee in everything
you buy.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 08:59:27 -0500, "Thurman" <thurman@bigplanet.com>
wrote in <81ozg.6$vz4.0@fe03.lga>:
>While doing some research about 14 years ago, I discovered Japan has one
>lawyer per 10,000 people. Curious, I looked for the U.S. ratio. It's one
>lawyer per 300 people.
>
>Divide what you would call an average income for an attorney, by 300 to
>determine your 'monthly burden'. Like taxes, it's a hidden fee in everything
>you buy.
It's not that simple -- you have to balance the cost of attorneys by
their benefit, which is often (usually?) positive. Only a minority of
lawyers are litigators -- most deal with mundane things like contracts,
taxes, estates, etc. Our economy is much stronger than Japan so we
might be doing something right.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:38:07 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<PQmzg.26191$fh.6070@fe58.usenetserver.com>:
>PC Medic <pcmedic2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Don't forget that we live in a new fangled democracy that our fore fathers
>would abhor. That is where a person or entity gets to vote with dollars
>rather than rights. Dollars are the almighty political voting tool.
What makes you think our forefathers would have abhorred it? They were
wealthy elite that were quite mercantile.
>We are
>the most corrupt nation on Earth (well, with any real GDP that is) short of
>the historical Roman Empire.
Get serious.
>Don't forget that Israel is really the 51st
>state ... and they get to vote with their dollars too.
Our dollars.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:45:08 -0400, "PC Medic" <pcmedic2@gmail.com>
wrote in <W8ezg.1592$W93.1119@dukeread05>:
>"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:44cd2fc9$0$9618
7$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
>It would certainly be costly for them to defend against all of them. And, in
>most states you can add your legal fees (if any) to the award you are
>seeking in small claims court.
Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
and can act to block them.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Thomas T. Veldhouse 2006-07-31, 12:33 pm |
| John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
> and can act to block them.
>
Why would they do that unless the suit is frivilous to begin with?
--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 3:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:31:13 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
<B7rzg.39806$Ni5.10839@fe49.usenetserver.com>:
>John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Why would they do that unless the suit is frivilous to begin with?
An organized activity like that can be considered abuse of process.
Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:lnesc29rdq9ncgb
3nj0flk9sc1knpq3o5c@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 22:45:08 -0400, "PC Medic" <pcmedic2@gmail.com>
> wrote in <W8ezg.1592$W93.1119@dukeread05>:
>
>
>
> Courts aren't sympathetic to that kind of thing (abuse of Small Claims),
> and can act to block them.
>
And where pray-tell does the all knowing JN see signs of "abuse of small
claims".
If a company (or individual) screws you over for xxx amount, it is well
within your right to seek restitution through small claims. Just because
they may have also screwed others, there is nothing stating you must be part
of a class action to do so.
| |
| PC Medic 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:jbksc2trgei2cnj
ihe1jop5eet0hhm9cc4@
4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:31:13 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
> <veldy71@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <B7rzg.39806$Ni5.10839@fe49.usenetserver.com>:
>
>
> An organized activity like that can be considered abuse of process.
So you are saying the court would consider individual plaintiffs not
organizing into a class action as being organized? Even when a class action
status exists, you are not required to become a part of that class action
and may seek restitution individually.
| |
| Scott 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:jbksc2trgei2cnj
ihe1jop5eet0hhm9cc4@
4ax.com...
> Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
>
Your caveat needs to expand to cover yourother topics of expertise as well.
It would actually end up being longer than most of your posts.
| |
| John Navas 2006-07-31, 10:33 pm |
| On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:16:43 -0400, "PC Medic" <pcmedic2@gmail.com>
wrote in <L3xzg.2564$W93.2188@dukeread05>:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
> news:jbksc2trgei2cnj
ihe1jop5eet0hhm9cc4@
4ax.com...
>
>So you are saying the court would consider individual plaintiffs not
>organizing into a class action as being organized? Even when a class action
>status exists, you are not required to become a part of that class action
>and may seek restitution individually.
I'm not saying anything of the kind. Read more carefully.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:44:29 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c9962e$0$96232$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>You may get an occasional instance where the plaintiff gains more than
>being made whole, i.e. in the mass torts for pharmaceuticals, but in
>those cases it's difficult to put a price on the permanent injury or death.
>
>In most cases, as in the Verizon case, the subscriber is made whole, and
>the corporation at least discloses what they are doing in advance, if
>they don't plan to actually change the underlying action that
>perpetuated the lawsuit.
>
>You get an occasional award that seems all out of proportion, and people
>latch onto these as examples of why tort reform is desperately needed.
>In many cases it's the corporations that were affected by the lawsuit
>that are behind the attempts to try to paint the result as excessive,
>even when it isn't. How many people actually read the facts on the
>McDonald's coffee case before forming judgement?
Class Action Dilemmas
Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
RAND Corporation
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_...69.1/index.html>
Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.
Also...
New Class Action Study
<http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>
In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.
Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
Report 3.)
Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
Bernstein).
In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
require a broader, more systemic reform.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:02:24 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c97033$0$96240$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Scott wrote:
>
>
>Wouldn't matter, as Rand has no credibility--it's a corporate mouthpiece.
Rand is nonprofit and highly respected, with beginnings in the military,
not corporations.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:56:00 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c8f02b$0$96235$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>
>No, if the lawsuits are truly frivolous, the defendant will not only
>win, but will recover legal costs from the plaintiff. ...
Not when forced to settle by the risks of litigating.
>participation.
>
>Well of course. There are millions of people in some of these class
>actions, but only a few lawyers. In a typical 70/30 split, the members
>of the class get a lot more of the award, but less per person.
You're apparently confusing fee-based class actions with
contingency-based personal injury lawsuits.
>
>Depending on your view, the beauty of, or the problem with, class
>actions, is that they eventually have an effect on forcing a behavior
>change of the corporation. We've already seen this with wireless
>carriers, including Cingular and Verizon.
There's no real evidence of that.
>expensive,
>
>If it's truly frivolous, then the defendants won't settle, ...
They will settle if the risks of litigating are too high, as they often
are.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-08-01, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:23:09 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 44c8da66$0$96203$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
>
>It's not "many people" that are pushing torte <sic> reform, it's the
>corporations that get caught doing something illegal and don't like
>having to ante up that are pushing it.
>
>The real purpose of so-called "tort reform," is to shield large
>corporations, from having to pay compensation to consumers for the harm
>incurred from fraud, negligence, and product liability. They've duped
>many people into believing that there has been a huge explosion in the
>number of tort filings, when in fact the number of filings has been
>steadily declining.
>
>Incidentally, a torte is a type of a cake; I think you meant tort,
>unless you are trying to change the way in which cakes are made.
Class Action Dilemmas
Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain, Executive Summary
RAND Corporation
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_...69.1/index.html>
Class action lawsuits-allowing one or a few plaintiffs to represent
many who seek redress-have long been controversial. The current
controversy, centered on lawsuits for money damages, is characterized
by sharp disagreement among stakeholders about the kinds of suits
being filed, whether plaintiffs' claims are meritorious, and whether
resolutions to class actions are fair or socially desirable.
Ultimately, these concerns lead many to wonder, "Are class actions
worth their costs to society and to business? Do they do more harm
than good?" To describe the landscape of current damage class action
litigation, elucidate problems, and identify solutions, the RAND
Institute for Civil Justice conducted a study using qualitative and
quantitative research methods. The researchers concluded that the
controversy over damage class actions has proven intractable because
it implicates deeply held but sharply contested ideological views
among stakeholders. Nevertheless, many of the political antagonists
agree that class action practices merit improvement. The authors argue
that both practices and outcomes could be substantially improved if
more judges would supervise class action litigation more actively and
scrutinize proposed settlements and fee awards more carefully.
Educating and empowering judges to take more responsibility for case
outcomes-and ensuring that they have the resources to do so-can help
the civil justice system achieve a better balance between the public
goals of class actions and the private interests that drive them.
Also...
New Class Action Study
<http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/000946.php>
In his new study, Professor Priest looks at the Eisenberg-Miller data
and reaches a very different conclusion, namely, that "class action
litigation is imposing extraordinary costs on American society," that
these high costs have persisted over a long period of time, and that
the case for reform is all the more compelling. Even taking the
Eisenberg-Miller dataset on its own terms, Professor Priest finds the
average class action recovery over the ten-year period they studied
was $138.6 million, which works out to an aggregate class action
recovery averaging $5.13 billion per year.
Moreover, Priest argues that the Eisenberg-Miller data set
significantly understates the overall magnitude of class action
litigation. Eisenberg and Miller only report data taken from published
opinions, and their data set is highly skewed toward securities
litigation, which constitute over half their sample. Over the entire
ten-year period, their data set includes only 9 civil rights class
actions, 23 employment class actions, 22 ERISA class actions, and 7
mass tort class actions. (By comparison, there were 2,133 class action
cases filed in federal courts in 1999 alone. We don't know the number
in state courts, but in 1999 there were 54 class actions filed in just
3 counties, Madison County, Illinois; Jefferson County, Texas; and
Palm Beach County, Florida. See Manhattan Institute Civil Justice
Report 3.)
Professor Priest also emphasizes that Eisenberg and Miller's study
does nothing to challenge some of the main criticisms of class action
litigation, such as the fact that mere certification of a class will
force defendants to settle rather than "betting their company,"
regardless of the evidence. Priest points out, for example, that the
Eisenberg-Miller data set includes the silicone breast litigation,
which settled for $4.2 billion even though strong scientific evidence
showed that breast implants did not cause the illnesses claimed in the
suit (see this Manhattan Institute study by Point of Law friend David
Bernstein).
In sum, Professor Priest finds that the case for class action reform
is strong. He thinks, however, that even though the Class Action
Fairness Act "will help" by "[m]oving class actions involving
significant different-state parties from state to federal courts,"
that ultimately "it is not likely to solve the problems created by
modern class action litigation," which are so entrenched that they
require a broader, more systemic reform.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
|
|
|
|
|