18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

708 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition other contaminants from the City of Flint Michigan’s Water Crisis, brought separate lawsuits comprised of both putative class actions as well as thousands of individual Plaintiffs. In their lawsuits, both the putative class members and the individual Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants caused, prolonged, concealed, ignored, or downplayed the risks of Plaintiffs’ exposure to the City’s water, which injured Plaintiffs and damaged their property and commercial interests. In a proposed settlement, the putative class action Plaintiffs and the Individual Plaintiffs joined together to resolve their claims against the settling Defendants. The Court preliminarily approved the proposed a $641 million settlement agreement involving the lawsuits that provided a mechanism for minors, injured adults, property owners and renters, as well as those who paid Flint water bills and impacted business owners, to receive monetary awards. The amount of money that parties who were covered by the agreement would receive depended on certain factors, such as exposure to the water and injuries. The Court determined that the proposed Master Settlement Agreement ("MSA") was within the range of possible final approval given all the issues in the litigation. Specifically, the Court reviewed the procedures related to minors and legally incapacitated individuals ("LIIs") and determined that they were fair and in the best interests of minors and the LIIs. Additionally, the Court determined that there was a sufficient basis to conditionally certify a settlement class and subclasses as proposed in the settlement. The Court opined that the MSA presented a complex, detailed, and orderly proposal for resolution of Plaintiffs’ claims against the settling Defendants. The Court noted that the MSA created an administrative compensation process and program that offered settlement opportunities to multiple categories of individuals and entities. It also set forth a procedure for individuals to submit claims and to receive monetary awards if they met the eligibility criteria. Per the agreement, Plaintiffs were not required to prove legal liability or causation, though certain adult claimants would need to present a medical record linking their condition to exposure to lead or other contaminants in the water. As such, the Court found that the settlement claims process protected against unauthorized persons obtaining money from the settlement by setting forth certain proof requirements. The aggregate settlement amount of $641.25 million was to be allocated among categories of claims as set forth in the MSA and would also be used to pay attorneys’ fees and expenses. The settlement distribution process required that similarly-situated claimants received the same monetary award. In this way, the Court reasoned that the settlement assured “horizontal equity” among claimants. Id. at *9. In light of the two-year negotiation process and representation of categories of claims by counsel, the Court found that the allocation among categories of claims was fair and adequate. For these reasons, the Court preliminarily approved the $641 million settlement in litigation over the Flint Water Crisis. In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation , Case No. 17-MD-2804 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 6, 2021) . In this multi- district litigation ("MDL"), Plaintiffs, a group of approximately 1,300 public entities, filed class actions against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of prescription opiate drugs seeking to recover the costs of life- threatening health issues caused by the opioid crisis. Bellwether trials were scheduled for a sample of over 2,000 lawsuits involving 34,458 counties, cities, and other public entities nationwide on claims against the opiate industry asserting alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and the Controlled Substances Act. Several parties ultimately settled the matter. The Court on its own initiative notified all counsel that any request of over 15% attorneys’ fees would be unreasonable. The Court explained that of the $26 billion settlement fund, 8.8% or $2.3 billion was reserved for attorneys’ fees. The Court determined that it had equitable authority and responsibility to carefully monitor the settlement agreements and fee agreements to ensure that they were fair to all potential stakeholders. The Court found that the cap on individual contingent fee contracts of 15% of the client’s total award yielded a maximum reasonable fee under the circumstances of the case. The Court determined that the cap would: (i) prevent sub-divisions of litigants from paying attorneys’ fees twice; (ii) promote equity in the distribution of the fund; (iii) provide attorneys with an award from the attorneys’ fee fund; and (iv) limit disproportionately large fee awards from over-compensated attorneys. The Court ordered that the 15% cap applied to all contracts between all States and sub-divisions and their counsel. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the 15% fee cap was reasonable to compensate all independently-retained counsel. Editor ’ s Note: While the nationwide opioid litigation was itself unprecedented, the Court’s order on limits to attorneys’ fees also was novel and unprecedented in terms of the Judge acting on his own to issue this ruling. In Re Samsung Top-Load Washing Machines Marketing, Sales Practices And Products Liability Litigation, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 13620 (10th Cir. May 7, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of consumers owning top-