class action law suit

Finally here it is.





http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6091853.html

---

› See More: class action law suit

On 24 Jul 2006 11:24:19 -0700, "enwike" <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>Finally here it is.
>
>http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-6091853.html

Enriching lawyers at the expense of customers.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

>
> 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:
>> 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!

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.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:19:34 -0700, SMS <[email protected]>
wrote in <[email protected]>:

>Joe wrote:
>>> 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!
>
>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.

>> 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 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.

>> 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.

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_reports/MR969.1/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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

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 <[email protected]>
> wrote in <[email protected]>:
>
>> Joe wrote:
>>>> 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!
>> 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.
>
>>> 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 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> 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_reports/MR969.1/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.
>

SMS <[email protected]> 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.

>
>> 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.

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.

>
>> 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.
>

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

John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>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.
>

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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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.

"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> 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.

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.

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:14:53 -0400, "PC Medic" <[email protected]> wrote in
<j1ayg.717$W93.149@dukeread05>:

>"Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> 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.
>
>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_reports/MR969.1/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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:47:49 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>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.
>
>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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:45:08 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
<[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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].

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/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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 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 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> 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

<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.