I dunno about her conclusion that the funds should revert to defendants. Reversion tends to reward class counsel laziness and collusive settlements. Attorneys would petition courts for slices of gargantuan and fictitious recovery, which the defendants know will be safely returned to them.
I would prefer escheat. I find it less likely that the government would conspire against class members. Moreover, escheat looks more like a fee; defendants would be hard pressed to spin it, and they couldn't simply donate money they were already planning to give. This wouldn't recover more money for the class, but it would help avoid collusive negotiations and charity-picking politics.
I dunno about her conclusion that the funds should revert to defendants. Reversion tends to reward class counsel laziness and collusive settlements. Attorneys would petition courts for slices of gargantuan and fictitious recovery, which the defendants know will be safely returned to them.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer escheat. I find it less likely that the government would conspire against class members. Moreover, escheat looks more like a fee; defendants would be hard pressed to spin it, and they couldn't simply donate money they were already planning to give. This wouldn't recover more money for the class, but it would help avoid collusive negotiations and charity-picking politics.