[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v7y2010i4p811-846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Study of Class Action Settlements and Their Fee Awards

Author

Listed:
  • Brian T. Fitzpatrick
Abstract
This article is a comprehensive empirical study of class action settlements in federal court. Although there have been prior empirical studies of federal class action settlements, these studies have either been confined to securities cases or have been based on samples of cases that were not intended to be representative of the whole (such as those settlements approved in published opinions). By contrast, in this article, I attempt to study every federal class action settlement from the years 2006 and 2007. As far as I am aware, this study is the first attempt to collect a complete set of federal class action settlements for any given year. I find that district court judges approved 688 class action settlements over this two‐year period, involving nearly $33 billion. Of this $33 billion, roughly $5 billion was awarded to class action lawyers, or about 15 percent of the total. Most judges chose to award fees by using the highly discretionary percentage‐of‐the‐settlement method, and the fees awarded according to this method varied over a broad range, with a mean and median around 25 percent. Fee percentages were strongly and inversely associated with the size of the settlement. The age of the case at settlement was positively associated with fee percentages. There was some variation in fee percentages depending on the subject matter of the litigation and the geographic circuit in which the district court was located, with lower percentages in securities cases and in settlements from the Second and Ninth Circuits. There was no evidence that fee percentages were associated with whether the class action was certified as a settlement class or with the political affiliation of the judge who made the award.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian T. Fitzpatrick, 2010. "An Empirical Study of Class Action Settlements and Their Fee Awards," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 811-846, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:7:y:2010:i:4:p:811-846
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01196.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01196.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01196.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Blakeley B. McShane & Oliver P. Watson & Tom Baker & Sean J. Griffith, 2012. "Predicting Securities Fraud Settlements and Amounts: A Hierarchical Bayesian Model of Federal Securities Class Action Lawsuits," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 482-510, September.
    2. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2022. "How do rights revolutions occur? Free speech and the first amendment," TSE Working Papers 22-1396, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    3. Luca Anderlini & Leonardo Felli & Giovanni Immordino, 2019. "Costly Pretrial Agreements," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(1), pages 159-188.
    4. Chen, Daniel L. & Sethi, Jasmin, 2016. "Insiders, Outsiders, and Involuntary Unemployment: Sexual Harrassment Exacerbates Gender Inequality," IAST Working Papers 16-44, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    5. Cassella, Stefano & Rizzo, A. Emanuele, 2023. "The equity value implications of court ideology: Evidence from federal judge turnover," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. Wang, Qiming & Cheng, C.S Agnes & Lian, Qin & Liu, Cathy Zishang, 2022. "Law firm market share and securities class action litigation outcomes," The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 596-609.
    7. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    8. Anand, Anita & Green, Andrew, 2018. "Securities settlements as examples of crisis-driven regulation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 41-57.
    9. Stansbury, Anna, 2024. "Incentives to Comply with the Minimum Wage in the US and UK," IZA Discussion Papers 16882, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Rizzo, Emanuele, 2018. "Essays on corporate governance and the impact of regulation on financial markets," Other publications TiSEM b5158260-ea13-4763-b992-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    11. Allen H. Huang & Jianghua Shen & Amy Y. Zang, 2022. "The unintended benefit of the risk factor mandate of 2005," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 1319-1355, December.
    12. Daniel L. Chen & Susan Yeh, 2023. "How do rights revolutions occur? Free speech and the first amendment," Working Papers hal-03921964, HAL.
    13. Chen, Daniel L. & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Government Expropriation Increases Economic Growth and Racial Inequality: Evidence from Eminent Domain," TSE Working Papers 16-693, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:7:y:2010:i:4:p:811-846. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.