Class Action Lawsuits in Europe: A Comparative and Economic Analysis

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship book series (EALELS, volume 1)

Abstract

In this essay I would like to outline and analyse various options for structuring a class action lawsuit . First, I will examine the form of class action lawsuit that is best known internationally, the United States of American class action, with a view to showing the extent to which its negative impacts are linked to particular institutions of US law. I will proceed to examine European forms of collective legal protection that are thought to be appropriate to today’s needs. The subsequent economic analysis sets out to evaluate the different possible structures for class action lawsuits with reference to the goal of economic efficiency .

Keywords

Class Action Deterrent Effect Civil Procedure Punitive Damage Rational Disinterest 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. Adams, Michael. 2004. Ökonomische Theorie des Rechts, Konzepte und Anwendungen. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften (cited as: Ökonomische Theorie).Google Scholar
  2. Adams, Michael. 1995. The Conflict of Jurisdictions: An Economic Analysis of Pretrial Discovery, Fact Gathering and Cost Allocation Rules in the United States and in Germany. European Review of Private Law 3: 53 et seqq. (cited as: ‘The Conflict’).Google Scholar
  3. Batten, Donna, ed. 2011. Gale Encyclopedia of American Law. Vol. 2, Be-Col. Detroit, Mich: Gale.Google Scholar
  4. Baudenacher, Carl. 1983. Der Zivilprozess als Mittel der Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik. Zeitschrift für Schweizerisches Recht 102: 173 et seqq.Google Scholar
  5. Bebchuck, Lucian Arye and Andrew T Guzman. 1996. How Would You Like to Pay for That?, The Strategic Effects of Fee Arrangements on Settlement Terms. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 1: 53 et seqq.Google Scholar
  6. Bohn, John and Stephen Choi. Fraud in the New-Issues Market: Empirical Evidence on Securities Class Action. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 14: 903 et seqq.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, Jules. 2001. The Practice of Principle. In Defence of a Pragmatist Approach to Legal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dahm Loraing, Regina, and Michael Speer. 2007. KapMuG, WCAM, Shell und Frau Kuneva – Sammelklagen in Europa. Ein Überblick. Cologne: PHi.Google Scholar
  9. Droese, Lorenz. Die Sammelklage in den USA und in Europa und die Auswirkungen auf die Rechtslage in der Schweiz. In Haftpflichtprozess 2010, eds. Walter Fellmann and Stephan Weber, 115 et seqq. Zürich/Basel/Geneva.Google Scholar
  10. Eichholtz, Stephanie. 2002. Die US-amerikanische Class Action und ihre deutschen Funktionsäquivalente. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  11. Eisenberg, Theodore and Geoffrey Miller. The Role of Opt-Outs and Objectors in Class Action Litigation: Theoretical and Empirical Issues. NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper, No. 04–004, 1 et seqq; Cornell Law School Research Paper, No. 04-019.Google Scholar
  12. Fritz, Torsten. 2004. Punitive/examplary damages in den USA und ihre Qualifikation als Zivilsache. Hamburg: T. Fritz.Google Scholar
  13. Hanisch, Andrea. 2008. Institutionenökonomische Ansätze in der Folgenabschätzung der Europäischen Kommission. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin GmbH.Google Scholar
  14. Harbour, J. Laurel and E. Marc Shelley. 2007. The Emerging European Class Action: Expanding Multi-Party Litigation To A Shrinking World. The Practical Ligitator 7: 23 et seqq.Google Scholar
  15. Hay, Bruce and David Rosenberg. 2000. “Sweetheart” and “Blackmail” Settlements in Class Actions: Reality and Remedy. Notre Dame Law Review 75: 1377 et seqq.Google Scholar
  16. Hess, Burkhard. 2004. Der Regierungsentwurf für ein Kapitalanlegermusterverfahrensgesetz – eine kritische Bestandesaufnahme. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankenrecht, 2329 et seqq.Google Scholar
  17. Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hohl, Julia. 2008. Die US-amerikanische Sammelklage im Wandel. Berlin: Schulthess.Google Scholar
  19. Janssen, André. 2009. Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Sammelklage. In Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Sammelklage?, eds. Matthias Casper et~al., 3 et seqq. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Mattil, Peter and Vanessa Desoutter. 2008. Class Action in Europe: Comparative Law and EC Law Considerations. Butterworths Journal of International Banking and Financial Law 10: 484 et seqq. (cited as: ‘EC Law’).Google Scholar
  21. Mattil, Peter and Vanessa Desoutter. 2008. Die europäische Sammelklage – rechtsvergleichende und EU-rechtliche Betrachtungen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Bankenrecht 12: 521 et seqq. (cited as: ‘Sammelklage’).Google Scholar
  22. Mathis, Klaus. 2011. Consequentialism in Law. In Efficiency, Sustainability, and Justice to Future Generations, ed. id., 3 et seqq. New York: Springer (cited as: ‘Consequentialism’).Google Scholar
  23. Mathis, Klaus. 2009. Efficiency Instead of Justice? Searching for the Philosophical Foundations of the Economic Analysis of Law. New York: Springer (cited as: Efficiency).Google Scholar
  24. Michailidou, Chrisoula. 2007. Prozessuale Fragen des Kollektivrechtsschutzes im europäischen Justizraum. Eine rechtsvergleichende Studie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  25. Mörsdorf-Schulte, Juliana. 1999. Funktion und Dogmatik US-amerikanischer punitive damages. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  26. Neufang, Sebastian. 2002. Kostenverteilung im US-amerikanischen Zivilprozess und Urteilsanerkennung in Deutschland. Hamburg/Berlin/London: LIT Verlag Münster.Google Scholar
  27. Pirker-Hörmann, Beate and Peter Kolba. 2006. Österreich: Von der Verbandsklage zur Sammelklage. In Kollektive Rechtsdurchsetzung – Chancen und Risiken, ed. Bundesministerum für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, 191 et seqq. Bamberg: BMELV.Google Scholar
  28. Renda, Andrea et~al. 2007. Making Antitrust Damages Actions More Effective in the EU: Welfare Impact and Potential Scenarios. In Report for the European Commission, Contract DG Comp/2006/A3/012. Brussels/Rome/Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Resnik, Judith. 1997. Litigating and Settling Class Actions: The Prerequisites of Entry. Davis Law Review 30: 835 et seqq.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenberg, David and Stephen Shavell. 1985. A Model in Which Suits Are Brought for Their Nuisance Value. International Review of Law and Economics 5: 3 et seqq.Google Scholar
  31. Schäfer, Hans-Bernd. 2000. The Bundling of Legal Actions Taken by Associations. European Journal of Law and Economics 9: 183 et seqq.Google Scholar
  32. Shavell, Steven. 2004. Foundations of Economic Analysis of Law. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sutter-Somm, Thomas. 2007. Schweizerisches Zivilprozessrecht. Basel: Schulthess Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. Van den Bergh, Roger and Sonja Keske. 2009. Rechtsökonomische Aspekte der Sammelklage. In Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Sammelklage?, eds. Matthias Casper et~al., 17 et seqq. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Wagner, Gerhard. 2009. Kollektiver Rechtsschutz – Regelungsbedarf bei Massen- und Streuschäden. In Auf dem Weg zu einer europäischen Sammelklage?, eds. Matthias Casper et~al., 41 et seqq. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of LucerneLucerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations