How Transparent are Class Action Outcomes?: Empirical Research on the Availability of Class Action Claims Data

N. Pace, W. Rubenstein
{"title":"How Transparent are Class Action Outcomes?: Empirical Research on the Availability of Class Action Claims Data","authors":"N. Pace, W. Rubenstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1206315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Class actions are among the most public forms of civil litigation, especially because a judge must review and approve a proposed class settlement following public notice and a public hearing. Ironically, however, a veil of secrecy can fall over class action litigation the moment the judge signs off on the agreement and ultimately, little information is available about how many class members actually received compensation and to what degree. This lack of transparency is especially troubling because of evidence that aggregate payments in class settlements sometimes constitute a mere fraction of the compensation fund extolled by the parties at the time of settlement review. This paper examines the extent to which claiming data are available and recommends ways to increase transparency in this area. We reviewed the official court files in a sample of 31 class action settlements and we also made direct inquiries to the judges, lawyers, and settlement administrators in another set of 57 cases. Searching through the case files and communicating with the participants, we were able to gain access to data in fewer than one of five closed cases. Despite the significant time and effort we put into the task, the final outcomes of four of five class action cases were beyond our discovery. It is not that the data are non-existent - claims administrators or parties certainly have them - it is, rather, that they are secreted away. The outcomes of publicly approved settlements lie locked in private files. We argue that this is a problem for three reasons: because the case outcomes might not be all that they purport to be; because the lessons that they could teach - for example, about which approaches work best - are lost to secrecy; and because the public record is unnecessarily incomplete and public access unnecessarily thwarted. We end the paper by proposing a set of solutions, including requiring parties to report back to the court on the final claiming data, publicizing this data, and creating a central repository for it.","PeriodicalId":340671,"journal":{"name":"RAND Corporation Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RAND Corporation Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1206315","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Class actions are among the most public forms of civil litigation, especially because a judge must review and approve a proposed class settlement following public notice and a public hearing. Ironically, however, a veil of secrecy can fall over class action litigation the moment the judge signs off on the agreement and ultimately, little information is available about how many class members actually received compensation and to what degree. This lack of transparency is especially troubling because of evidence that aggregate payments in class settlements sometimes constitute a mere fraction of the compensation fund extolled by the parties at the time of settlement review. This paper examines the extent to which claiming data are available and recommends ways to increase transparency in this area. We reviewed the official court files in a sample of 31 class action settlements and we also made direct inquiries to the judges, lawyers, and settlement administrators in another set of 57 cases. Searching through the case files and communicating with the participants, we were able to gain access to data in fewer than one of five closed cases. Despite the significant time and effort we put into the task, the final outcomes of four of five class action cases were beyond our discovery. It is not that the data are non-existent - claims administrators or parties certainly have them - it is, rather, that they are secreted away. The outcomes of publicly approved settlements lie locked in private files. We argue that this is a problem for three reasons: because the case outcomes might not be all that they purport to be; because the lessons that they could teach - for example, about which approaches work best - are lost to secrecy; and because the public record is unnecessarily incomplete and public access unnecessarily thwarted. We end the paper by proposing a set of solutions, including requiring parties to report back to the court on the final claiming data, publicizing this data, and creating a central repository for it.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
集体诉讼结果的透明度如何?:集体诉讼索赔数据可得性的实证研究
集体诉讼是最公开的民事诉讼形式之一,特别是因为法官必须在公开通知和公开听证会之后审查和批准拟议的集体和解。然而,具有讽刺意味的是,在法官签署协议的那一刻,集体诉讼就会笼罩上一层保密的面纱,最终,关于有多少集体成员实际获得了赔偿以及赔偿程度的信息很少。这种透明度的缺乏尤其令人不安,因为有证据表明,集体和解的总付款额有时只占和解审查时各方所赞扬的赔偿基金的一小部分。本文考察了索赔数据可用的程度,并建议了增加这一领域透明度的方法。我们查阅了31起集体诉讼和解案件的正式法庭档案,并对另外57起案件的法官、律师和和解管理人进行了直接询问。通过搜索案件档案并与参与者沟通,我们能够访问不到五个结案案件中的一个的数据。尽管我们投入了大量的时间和精力,但五起集体诉讼案件中有四起的最终结果超出了我们的发现范围。这并不是说这些数据不存在——声称管理员或当事人肯定拥有这些数据——而是说,它们被隐藏起来了。公开批准的和解结果被锁在私人文件中。我们认为这是一个问题,原因有三:因为案件的结果可能并不完全像他们声称的那样;因为他们可以传授的经验——例如,哪些方法最有效——都被保密了;因为公共记录不必要地不完整,公众访问不必要地受阻。最后,我们提出了一套解决方案,包括要求各方向法院报告最终的索赔数据,公布这些数据,并为其创建一个中央存储库。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Labor Supply Consequences of the Opioid Crisis Who Gets Counted as Part of America’s STEM Workforce? The Implications of Different Classification Approaches for Understanding the Gender Gap in STEM Re-Evaluating the Returns to Language Skills Using Latent Trait Estimates Lessons Learned from Stabilization Initiatives in Afghanistan: A Systematic Review of Existing Research Characterization of Fertility Levels in Brazil, 1970-2010
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1