What Does a Class Action Lawyer See (right)?  CLIENTS!

The AP reports a proposed class action settlement (pending judicial approval) of $10.5 million.  If you read between the lines of the report, you'll see that this was apparently a good deal for the defendants.  

Why?  Because the Board of Directors charged with encouraging their employees to place their pension funds in risky investments (ENRON ring a bell?) did not simply hunker down in a defensive posture when sued, but instead provided the company's former employees with "numerous enhancements" to their pension benefits. 

According Plaintiffs' counsel Steven Krasner, "[t]hose benefits were very substantial  If you add the $10.5 million to that, they did a pretty decent job to make people whole."   

The defendants' public statement was the usual -- "[i]t's always more efficient to resolve the issues in a case rather than follow through the courts" -- according to spokesman Al Butkus.

Though the public generally sees a statement like this to be corporate %$^#, as we all know, it also happens to be the actual verifiable truth.

The Strategic Defensive Use of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act

The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, by the way, is a good face-saving device to bring your clients into strict compliance with consumer demands, thereby sharply reducing the settlement value of the class action or 17200 suit that invariably follows.

The CLRA requires a pre-suit demand by the plaintiffs, thereby giving the defense an opportunity to mend its ways. 

In my own litigation experience, compliance with a CLRA demand to change the way a product or service is advertised is a relatively pain-free way to drastically reduce your clients' damage exposure.  My client did this in response to an accusation that its advertising was misleading.  Though we disagreed, the client nevertheless changed its advertising to reveal the allegedly concealed transaction fee.   

As a result, Plaintiffs' counsel accepted an unprecedented injunction-only remedy coupled with a few hundred thousand dollars in attorneys fees to settle the case -- a far better deal than the dozens of other defendants in this national class action were able to achieve.

Why? 

First, because our compliance with the CLRA demand made our client look like a good guy -- ruining the Plaintiffs' "spin" that all defendants were evil profit hungry businesses preying upon innocent victims (cf. the new Glenn Close series Damaged).  

Second, because the Plaintiffs' attorneys (who are, remember, people) were favorably impressed and kindly disposed to us after we complied with their demand rather than simply burying them in paperwork -- well, we did also bury them in paper by strictly complying with their document demands, but that's litigation -- speak softy, carry a stick and remember the rule of reciprocity.  

AP item here.