For Immediate Release: March 2, 1999

For More Information Contact: TLPJ, 202-797-8600
Objections
Previous Press Release

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 objections today to a proposed nationwide class action settlement in Fletcher v. Brooke 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 fairness hearing on the settlement is scheduled for March 9 before Mobile County Circuit Court Judge Braxton L. Kittrell, 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 another case -- Ex Parte Holland -- that suggested the proposed class certification in Fletcher might not be permitted.

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 thrown out at TLPJ's urging after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 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 in Walker that Liggett's deal was unapprovable on its face. Liggett appealed that decision, but repeatedly delayed briefing it on the ground that a new settlement was in the works.

Liggett has now abandoned the federal courts of West Virginia and refiled a third settlement, back in Alabama state court in Fletcher. TLPJ contends that the settlement suffers from the same basic defects as its predecessors and should be rejected outright. The deal has been nominally improved and cosmetically restructured, but 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.