The main procedure for collective actions in the US is the class action. Hundreds or thousands of claimants can be represented in one set of proceedings. Although rare, a defendant class action is also possible, particularly in insolvency-related litigation, in which a plaintiff seeks to pursue claims against a large number of defendants (e.g. a fraudulent transfer claim brought by a litigation trustee against former investors that received merger consideration shortly before a company’s bankruptcy). This review, however, focuses on plaintiff class actions.

The requirements for bringing a class action in the US federal courts are:

• numerosity – that there are too many would-be claimants to join them all in practice;
• commonality – the claims must all raise similar questions of fact or law;
• adequacy – the chosen representative must be appropriate;
• typicality – the representative’s claims must be typical of those of the other individuals; and
• superiority – a class action must be the most appropriate method of settling the dispute.

Class actions are also permissible in state courts. Each state has its own procedural requirements, which are largely similar to the federal court requirements.

An action may be maintained on behalf of a class only with the court’s approval. To do this, the plaintiffs seeking to represent the class must file a motion to have the class certified. Group actions by multiple parties with similar claims are also possible, although less frequently seen than class actions.

The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. Typically, these cases result from an action on the part of a business, a particular product defect, a policy that applied to all proposed class members in a uniform manner or a regulatory enforcement action. After the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must file a motion to have the class certified. In many cases, class certification will require additional discovery in order to determine if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Upon the motion to certify the class, the defendants may object to whether the issues are appropriately handled as a class action, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The court will also examine the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs and its resources for dealing with class actions.

Class actions in the US are generally opt out. Due process requires, in most cases, that notice describing the class action be sent, published or broadcast to class members. Class members must be given the opportunity to opt out of the class, i.e. if individuals wish to proceed with their own litigation they are entitled to do so, but only to the extent that they give timely notice to the class counsel or the court that they are opting out.

Pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act 2005 (“CAFA”), defendants that enter into settlement agreements to resolve class actions in federal court are required to provide notice promptly after the filing of a proposed settlement in court to the appropriate federal or state agencies (e.g. state attorneys general) for all states in which potential class members reside.

If the CAFA notice is not provided, class members are entitled to challenge the finality of the settlement.

The class action procedure is commonly utilised in the US when the requirements for maintaining a class described above are satisfied. There are no general limitations on the claims that may be pursued, assuming the prerequisites applicable to any civil claim exist (such as standing and timeliness).

Most civil trials involve juries.

In addition to compensatory relief calculated based on the damage suffered by the class as a whole, punitive damages are obtainable if sufficiently egregious conduct on the part of defendants can be established. In recent years, the US Supreme Court has issued decisions limiting the magnitude of punitive damages awards, requiring lower federal courts to review factors, including the degree of the conduct, the disparity between the actual harm and the punitive award and a comparison of the award to similar civil or criminal penalties. In particular, the punitive damages award must be reasonable and proportionate to the wrong committed, or it will be viewed as irrational, arbitrary and a deprivation of constitutional protections. Federal courts are unlikely to sustain punitive damages awards that exceed a 9:1 ratio as compared with compensatory damages, although the inquiry remains case-specific. Equitable remedies such as injunctions are also available.

Contingency fees are permitted and are standard for plaintiffs in class actions. However, absent statutory or contractual provisions permitting the recovery of attorneys’ fees, the successful party cannot recover costs from the unsuccessful party. Typically, plaintiffs’ counsel file requests for fee disbursements that are paid out of any settlement funds following court approval of a negotiated settlement with a defendant.

Yes, there is pre-trial disclosure, which can be extensive, and witness depositions. Disclosure of documents, as well as witness or expert depositions, is typically required prior to certifying a class and may be separate from any disclosure related to the merits of a case. Courts have been aggressive in recent years in enforcing requirements on outside and internal counsel related to the retention, collection and review of documents, particularly electronically stored information.

Class actions are likely to continue to increase. Class actions are the main procedure by which large-scale commercial disputes involving large numbers of claimants are resolved and civil class actions often follow regulatory investigations, such as in the securities or antitrust context. Huge damages awards can be made by juries to penalise businesses, which act in part to regulate commercial activity. Many claims are driven by claimants’ lawyers who stand to make large profits from contingency fees awarded as a proportion of those damages.

Recent decisions by the US Supreme Court and state supreme courts continue to alter the face of class action litigation, including where and when claims might be brought.

In Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, 138 S. Ct. 1061 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over class action claims brought under the federal Securities Act of 1933, and that such claims are not removable to federal court. Cyan has had an immediate and significant impact, with state Securities Act filings reportedly increasing by 40% in 2019, and actually exceeding the number of federal-only court filings. In 2020, the Delaware Supreme Court held in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, 2020 WL 1280785, at *23 (Del. Mar. 18, 2020), that so-called federal forum provisions in Delaware corporation corporate charters that require any Securities Act claims, which are typically brought as class actions, to be pursued in federal court are valid and enforceable. In the years to come, other US states may follow Delaware’s lead, which may result in Securities Act class actions shifting back more prevalently to federal courts.

In China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, 138 S. Ct. 1800 (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the filing of a class action does not toll the statute of limitations for successive or “stacked” class actions – in other words, equitable tolling does not toll the statute of limitations for absent class members to pursue a separate class action if the initial action fails to be certified. ith American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 94 S. Ct. 756 (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court held that filing of a class action in federal court tolls the statute of limitations “for all purported members of the class who make timely motions to intervene after the court has found the suit inappropriate for class action status.” ut with China Agritech, the Supreme Court has clarified that American Pipe tolling only permits absent class members to join the action or file individual claims, not to file successive class actions. In the years to come, federal courts may rely upon China Agritech to further limit the scope of equitable tolling in class actions.

In the wake of these high profile cases, including Cyan, Sciabacucchi, and China Agritech, the focus will now be on the application and interpretation of these opinions by lower courts.