Case: Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor (1997, US) [CB.

822-832]

Facts: This case concerned a certification of a class action lawsuit to achieve

a global settlement of current and future asbestos-related claims. The class
potentially encompasses hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of individuals
tied together by this commonality: each was, or some day may be, adversely
affected by past exposure to asbestos products manufactured by one or more of 20
companies (the petitioners).

Issue: Whether such a broad class can be certified as a class action. No.

Holding: class action cannot be certified.

Reasoning: The Court held that the class failed to satisfy the predominance
standard and that the class approved by the district court failed to satisfy the
requirement that the named parties would fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.
○ Requirement of Common issue predominance: Rule 23(b)(3) - common questions
of law or fact … predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
§ Lower court said the benefits asbestos-exposed persons might gain
from the class action compensation, but this legislative issue not important here
for the judicial findings of pertinence. Instead you have to meet the reqs of
23(b)(3)
§ Reqs of 23(b)(3) not met because so many diff facts surrounding the
individual class member; too broad
○ Requirement of Adequacy of Representation: Rule 23(a)(4) - requires that
named parties "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class"
§ Not met b/c diff medical conditions don’t represent all subclasses;
too broad
□ Interests of those within a single class not met
§ No assurance for fair and adequate representation for the diverse
groups and individuals affected
§ No assurance that the named plaintiffs operated under a proper
understanding of the representational responsibilities.
○ The global-settlement scheme should be addressed by Congress
(legislature), not the courts (judicial)

• Amchem Products v Windsor (1997, US) [Yeazell 822-832]

○ Here; legislative, not judicial problem, so circuit court reversed lower
court's decision
○ Decision that class action should not be upheld
• Lots of ppl sued lots of companies for injuries caused by asbestos
○ Lawyers break the matter into 2 litigations
§ Litigation #1 - settle $200million - pay all injured clients pursuant
to a settlement agreement
□ Contingent on district court certifying the class action in #2,
and
§ Litigation #2 - all ppl who haven't filed suit, but may in the future
do so - settle this one too
□ To achieve a global settlement of all potential claims.
○ Problem here:
§ Conflict of interest of the lawyers
§ Ppl who haven't filed suit will never be able to do this
○ Benefit of class action:
§ Efficiency
○ Why does the court say class action not certified?
 § Common issues do not predominate
§ Rule 23(a)(4) - that the named parties will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class.
□ It's not that the named parties aren't typical, they are. The
problem is that the class itself is so riven by conflict that these ppl cannot
possibly adequately meet the interests of the class.
• Due process problem - if we are going to take away the claim of ppl unknown, we
better make sure they are adequately represented
• Problem wont be solved through litigation. Why?
○ After lawsuit, you will have to
• The courts and litigations are one mechanism by which the country is governed,
but not the only