The costs of class actions: Allocation and collective redress in the US experience

European Journal of Law and Economics

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 169-183

  Calabresi, Guido ^a   Schwartz, Kevin S ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Allocation of costs; Class actions; Collective legal redress; Deterrence; Extra compensatory damages; Punitive damages

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052260000     PISSN: 09291261     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10657-011-9233-z     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Baumgartner, S. P. (2007). Class actions and group litigation in Switzerland. Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, 27, 301-350.
2. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
3. Beisner, J. H., & Miller, J. D. (2003). Class action magnet courts: The allure intensifies, 4 BNA Class Action Litigation Report, 58.
4. Calabresi, G., & Bobbitt, P. (1978). Tragic choices. New York: Paperback.
5. Calabresi, G. (1985). Ideals, beliefs, attitudes, and the law. New York: Paperback.
6. Calabresi, G. (2005). The complexity of torts-The case of punitive damages. In M. Stuart Madden (Ed.), Exploring tort law. New York: Pace University.
7. Coffee, J. C. (1983a). Understanding the plaintiff's attorney: The implications of economic theory for private enforcement of law through class and derivative actions. Columbia Law Review, 86, 669-727.
8. Coffee, J. C. (1983b). Rescuing the private attorney general: Why the model of the lawyer as bounty hunter is not working. Maryland Law Review, 42, 215-288.
9. Coffee, J. C. (1995). Class wars: The dilemma of the mass tort class action. Columbia Law Review, 95, 1343-1465.
10. Commission of the European Communities. (2007). Green paper on consumer collective redress.
11. Commission of the European Communities. (2008). White paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules. (2 April 2008).
12. Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the white paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules. (22 Sept 2009).
13. Conte, A., & Newberg H. B. (2002). Newberg on class actions (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.
14. Friendly, H. J. (1973). Federal jurisdiction: A general view. New York: Columbia University Press.
15. Handler, M. (1971). The shift from substantive to procedural innovations in antitrust suits-The twenty-third annual antitrust review. Columbia Law Review, 71, 1.
16. Harbour, L. J., & Shelley, M. E. (2006). The emerging European class action: Expanding multi-party litigation to a shrinking world. ABA Annual Meeting, Section of Litigation (Aug 2006).
17. Hensler, D., et al. (2000). Class action dilemmas: Pursuing public goals for private gain. Santa Monica: Rand Institute for Civil Justice.
18. Issacharoff, S., & Miller, G. P. (2008). Will aggregate litigation come to Europe. Working Paper No. 08-46, Law and Economics Research Paper Series.
19. Macey, J. R., & Miller, G. P. (1991). The plaintiffs' attorney's role in class action and derivative litigation: Economic analysis and recommendations for reform. University of Chicago Law Review, 58(1), 1-118.
20. McLaughlin, J. M. (2009). McLaughlin on class actions: Law and practice (6th ed.). West Publications.
21. Polinsky, A. M., & Shavell, S. (1998). Punitive damages: An economic analysis. Harvard Law Review, 111, 869-962.
22. Posner, R. A. (1973). An economic approach to legal procedure and judicial administration. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 399-458.
23. Posner, R. A. (2001). Antitrust in the new economy. Antitrust Law Journal, 68, 925-943.
24. Resnik, J. (1991). From "cases" to "litigation". Law and Contemporary Problems, 54, 5-68.
25. Russell, T. L. (2010). Exporting class actions to the European Union. 28 Boston University International Law Journal, 141, 168-176.
26. Schwartz, G. T. (1991). The myth of the Ford Pinto case. Rutgers Law Review, 43, 1013-1068.
27. Sharkey, C. M. (2003a). Punitive damages as societal damages. Yale Law Journal, 113, 347-453.
28. Sharkey, C. M. (2003b). Book review: Punitive damages: Should juries decide? Texas Law Review, 82, 381-411.
29. Stuyck, J., et al. (2007). An analysis and evaluation of alternative means of consumer redress other than redress through ordinary judicial proceedings (17 Jan 2007), http://ec. europa. eu/consumers/redress/reports_studies/comparative_report_en. pdf.
30. Subrin, S. N. (1988). David Dudley Field and the Field Code: A historical analysis of an earlier procedural vision. Law and History Review, 6, 311-374.
31. Subrin, S. N. (1989). Federal rules, local rules, and state rules: Uniformity, divergence and emerging procedural patterns. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 137(6), 1999-2051.
32. Willging, T. E., & Lee, E. G. III (2008). The impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005: Fourth interim report to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, Federal Judicial Center.