For Immediate Release: September 10, 1998
For More Information Contact: TLPJ, 202-797-8600
TLPJ Opposes Nationwide Class Action Settlement Involving the Liggett Tobacco Company
Proposed Settlement Nearly Identical to One Previously Rejected By West Virginia Federal Court
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) filed an opposition today to a proposed nationwide class action settlement in Fletcher v. Brook Group, Ltd., which is pending before an Alabama state court. The proposed settlement would extinguish virtually all present and future tobacco-related litigation against the Liggett tobacco company. A motion for preliminary approval of the deal is scheduled for this morning before Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Braxton L. Kitrell, Jr.
"This is a blatant attempt to use the judiciary to shield the tobacco company from liability," said TLPJ Foundation President Joseph A. Power, Jr., of Chicago's Power, Rogers & Smith. "The proposed settlement provides virtually no relief for the class and violates the class members' rights to opt out."
The proposed settlement in Fletcher is Liggett's third attempt to use the class action device to cut off tobacco-related claims. First, on March 20, 1997, Liggett filed a class action settlement in Fletcher that included all existing tobacco-related claims against it, as well as any future claims that accrue over the next 25 years. Eight days later, however, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling in Ex Parte Holland which indicated that the proposed class certification in Fletcher was not proper.
Liggett then abandoned the Fletcher settlement and filed a virtually identical deal in West Virginia federal court in Walker v. Liggett. Although the Walker settlement received preliminary approval in May 1997, the settlement was quickly scuttled as a result of the intervening U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amchem v. Windsor, a hotly contested class action settlement involving millions of asbestos victims nationwide. Amchem held, among other things, that a settlement class including enormously diverse groups of present and future personal injury victims could not possibly meet the various certification criteria of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class actions. In response to TLPJ's objections, the district court held that Liggett's deal was unapprovable on its face. Although Liggett appealed that decision, it has repeatedly stayed briefing of the appeal on the ground that it was attempting to work out a new deal with the plaintiffs.
Liggett has now abandoned the federal courts of West Virginia and refiled a third settlement in Alabama state court. In its objections to Liggett's request for preliminary approval of the deal, TLPJ has argued that the settlement suffers from the same basic defects as its predecessors and should be rejected outright. Although there are some nominal improvements to the deal and cosmetic restructuring of its terms, TLPJ argued that it still cannot withstand scrutiny in light of Amchem and Holland.
"Liggett's serial efforts at class action abuse must be stopped," said TLPJ cooperating counsel Steve Baughman of Baron & Budd in Dallas. "In addition to providing no real relief to the majority of class members, this proposed settlement is riddled with conflicts between the present and future personal injury victims. There is simply no basis for certifying a mandatory class of this type."
In addition to Baughman, TLPJ's legal team in this case includes Henry Brewster of Stein & Brewster in Mobile, and TLPJ Staff Attorney Leslie Brueckner.