Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

GCs facing more bet-the-company and higher exposure class actions

March 23, 2015 by Chris S. Coutroulis

Across industries, companies spent $2 billion on class action lawsuits in 2014, slightly less than the $2.1 billion they spent in 2013. This year, spending is expected to return to 2013 levels.

Companies’ class action dockets increased on average by one new case in 2014, bringing the average number of class actions managed to five. This total is expected to remain constant in 2015, as the number of new matters is likely to be offset by those resolved.

As before, consumer fraud and labor and employment remain the most prevalent class action matters. They account for more than 50 percent of all class actions, down somewhat from 2013. As predicted in last year’s report, data privacy emerged as a class action growth area. Insurance also made its first showing on the list.

Looking ahead, corporate counsel are bracing for an expected wave of data privacy class actions. Twenty-nine percent predict these matters will pose the greatest class action threat.

Across risk levels, class actions can result in substantial financial exposure. Corporate counsel reported that even routine class actions often place tens of millions of dollars at risk. With each increase in risk level (from routine to complex to high-risk to bet-the-company), the potential exposure jumps dramatically (well into the billions) as do fees paid to outside counsel. Just three years ago, only 4.5 percent of class actions qualified as high-risk or bet-the-company. That percentage has more than tripled, to 16.4 percent. As a result, corporate counsel have increased class action spending, as they confront the exposure these cases present.

Class actions typically resolve in one fashion or another—very few go to trial. Most resolutions occur prior to a decision on class certification, but in a relatively sizeable percentage, resolution comes later. If a lawsuit continues after the certification decision, settlement may be considered. If certification was denied, settlement is often quick and inexpensive. If it was granted, the degree to which settlement makes sense will depend on various factors, including damage and cost containment, minimized reputational damage, predictability regarding outcome, and less business disruption.

Recognizing that accountability is required to contain class action risks, companies are increasingly making a single individual accountable for the outcomes of their class action lawsuits. In 2014, more than half of surveyed companies took this step, up from 38 percent in 2011. This move toward accountability is associated with a decrease in per class action spending on outside counsel as well as overall.

Companies also report that early case assessment is critical to effective class action management, and nearly 49 percent deem outside counsel essential to that process, up from 32.6 percent the previous year. Legal departments increasingly involve outside counsel in these assessments at the earliest stages, particularly as a matter’s risk level rises. Companies that do so experience savings of 25.5 percent per class action matter, up from 22.3 percent in 2013.

To read the full 2015 Class Action Survey report, please visit ClassActionSurvey.com.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Question Certified To Second Circuit: Does The Court Or The Arbitrator Decide Whether An Arbitration Agreement Permits Class Arbitration?

Next Article »

Threat of Identity Theft is Not Enough: Another Data Breach Class Action Dismissed for Lack of Standing
Chris S. Coutroulis

About Chris S. Coutroulis

Chris Coutroulis is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida, and director of the Carlton Fields' Class Action Survey.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.