WEBVTT - GOP Lawmakers Focus on Class Action Lawsuits (Audio)

0:00:00.120 --> 0:00:03.119
<v Speaker 1>Republicans have been trying to kill class actions and push

0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:06.400
<v Speaker 1>tort reform bills for years. It's been a losing battle

0:00:06.480 --> 0:00:09.520
<v Speaker 1>since the Class Action Fairness Act of two thousand five,

0:00:09.600 --> 0:00:13.800
<v Speaker 1>co authored by GOP Congressman Rob Goodlat. Now good Lat,

0:00:13.960 --> 0:00:17.120
<v Speaker 1>chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, has introduced the broadest

0:00:17.200 --> 0:00:20.279
<v Speaker 1>of a series of bills designed to discourage class actions

0:00:20.280 --> 0:00:23.040
<v Speaker 1>and make it harder to sue businesses joining us as

0:00:23.079 --> 0:00:25.800
<v Speaker 1>Paul Barrett of Bloomberg business Week, who has written about

0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:30.160
<v Speaker 1>this in an article entitled will the GOP finally crushed

0:00:30.200 --> 0:00:34.800
<v Speaker 1>class actions? Paul? How will these bills make it harder

0:00:34.840 --> 0:00:39.280
<v Speaker 1>to bring class actions? Chairman good Lat's bill, which is

0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:42.320
<v Speaker 1>the one that directly addresses class actions, has a whole

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:46.000
<v Speaker 1>series of provisions, no one of which would would spell

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:49.440
<v Speaker 1>the end of class actions, but in combination, they would

0:00:49.479 --> 0:00:52.479
<v Speaker 1>make it much more difficult for plaintiffs lawyers to bring

0:00:52.479 --> 0:00:55.560
<v Speaker 1>these cases. For example, uh, there's a provision in the

0:00:55.600 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>bill that requires that a legal fees for the plaintiff's

0:01:00.040 --> 0:01:03.200
<v Speaker 1>lawyer be a percentage of only of the money that

0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:06.920
<v Speaker 1>has actually gone to the alleged victims in the case,

0:01:07.240 --> 0:01:10.080
<v Speaker 1>so that if the remedies sought by the class action

0:01:10.440 --> 0:01:13.600
<v Speaker 1>was just a change in corporate behavior. That might mean

0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>that the that the plaintiffs lawyers would not be entitled

0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:19.320
<v Speaker 1>to any damages, and that in turn, obviously would be

0:01:19.360 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 1>a huge deterrent to the bringing of those kinds of lawsuits. Well,

0:01:23.040 --> 0:01:27.640
<v Speaker 1>there's also there are also provisions to prevent UM firms

0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:31.320
<v Speaker 1>from doing multiple representations and multiple suits of the same plaintiffs.

0:01:31.400 --> 0:01:34.479
<v Speaker 1>What's that all about. Yeah, Well, actually, that provision which

0:01:34.480 --> 0:01:36.200
<v Speaker 1>we wrote about in our article, which was in the

0:01:36.240 --> 0:01:40.000
<v Speaker 1>bill as of late Wednesday, was was taken out of

0:01:40.040 --> 0:01:42.200
<v Speaker 1>the bill at the very very last second because it

0:01:42.240 --> 0:01:44.520
<v Speaker 1>was attracting a lot of attention, So that there was

0:01:44.560 --> 0:01:48.240
<v Speaker 1>a provision originally in the bill that basically would have

0:01:48.240 --> 0:01:52.840
<v Speaker 1>made it very difficult for the experienced securities class action

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:57.240
<v Speaker 1>law firms that bring UH cases of that UH securities

0:01:57.280 --> 0:02:01.680
<v Speaker 1>fraud cases and frequently represent the same institutional investors over

0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:03.560
<v Speaker 1>and over. It would have made it very difficult for

0:02:03.600 --> 0:02:06.240
<v Speaker 1>them to do business. But good lad actually had the

0:02:06.240 --> 0:02:08.880
<v Speaker 1>bill amended, it literally on the floor at the last minute,

0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:11.240
<v Speaker 1>and that provision is now out. So, Paul, what are

0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:14.880
<v Speaker 1>the chances that this will pass not just the House

0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:18.560
<v Speaker 1>but the Senate. Well, these bills are passing the House,

0:02:18.600 --> 0:02:23.160
<v Speaker 1>and that's as expected. They face a much tougher set

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:25.679
<v Speaker 1>of obstacles in the Senate, where the Republicans have only

0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:28.960
<v Speaker 1>a fifty two to forty eight advantage, which means that

0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:32.280
<v Speaker 1>under Senate rules, to avoid a filibuster, they need to

0:02:32.320 --> 0:02:36.000
<v Speaker 1>find eight Democrats to go along with them. Now, they

0:02:36.040 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 1>have a strategy for that. They're going to target UH,

0:02:39.000 --> 0:02:41.959
<v Speaker 1>Democrats from red states who are up for re election

0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:44.720
<v Speaker 1>in eighteen and hope that they can peel away a

0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:48.480
<v Speaker 1>few of those votes. Well, that's an interesting strategy though, Paul,

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:54.720
<v Speaker 1>because you know, stopping people playeffs from from suing big corporations.

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:58.120
<v Speaker 1>How does that play out in terms of trying to

0:02:58.160 --> 0:03:01.360
<v Speaker 1>get say, you know, white, middle class Trump voters in

0:03:01.400 --> 0:03:04.240
<v Speaker 1>red states to vote against Democrats. Well, I think it

0:03:04.680 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 1>is potentially challenging, and it's not obvious how that issue plays.

0:03:08.800 --> 0:03:10.919
<v Speaker 1>And that's one of the reasons why this kind of

0:03:11.000 --> 0:03:15.960
<v Speaker 1>legislation generally, UM is very difficult for business interests to

0:03:15.960 --> 0:03:19.480
<v Speaker 1>pass on the federal level because what your constituency UH

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:23.120
<v Speaker 1>is can be a little bit ambiguous. Businesses clearly want

0:03:23.400 --> 0:03:27.840
<v Speaker 1>restrictions on civil litigation, but whether the little guy wants

0:03:27.840 --> 0:03:31.400
<v Speaker 1>those restrictions is is far more ambiguous when you hear

0:03:31.400 --> 0:03:34.760
<v Speaker 1>about class actions, Paul. Many people think about enormous fees

0:03:34.920 --> 0:03:39.400
<v Speaker 1>for the plaintiff's lawyers involved. But class actions have also

0:03:39.520 --> 0:03:42.800
<v Speaker 1>led to changes in industry practices. And recently there was

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 1>the Trump University class action on behalf of six thousand students.

0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 1>So there are some class actions that do good as well. Um,

0:03:52.800 --> 0:03:56.000
<v Speaker 1>if this does pass, will it be something that Donald

0:03:56.000 --> 0:04:00.560
<v Speaker 1>Trump would sign, Well, certainly Republicans are speculating, um that

0:04:01.080 --> 0:04:05.120
<v Speaker 1>the President Trump would sign such legislation. With President Obama

0:04:05.160 --> 0:04:07.680
<v Speaker 1>in the White House, there was an almost certain veto

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:12.400
<v Speaker 1>for anything along these lines, um. But President Trump presents

0:04:12.880 --> 0:04:18.040
<v Speaker 1>an ambiguous figure himself. He has been the target of

0:04:18.040 --> 0:04:20.840
<v Speaker 1>of all kinds of civil litigation, as you mentioned, um,

0:04:20.880 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>but he also has been a very aggressive plaintiff in

0:04:24.200 --> 0:04:28.080
<v Speaker 1>a number of occasions, uh, during his business career. So

0:04:28.120 --> 0:04:30.240
<v Speaker 1>he's both someone who gets who got sued a lot,

0:04:30.440 --> 0:04:34.599
<v Speaker 1>and who himself filed a lot of lawsuits. So just quickly, Paul,

0:04:34.640 --> 0:04:36.520
<v Speaker 1>I mean, I know you're reporting on this, and you've

0:04:36.560 --> 0:04:39.560
<v Speaker 1>given us a sort of handicapping of it, but does

0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:41.600
<v Speaker 1>it really look like this is the year this could

0:04:41.600 --> 0:04:43.200
<v Speaker 1>go through the Senator? Is it going to be just

0:04:43.240 --> 0:04:45.360
<v Speaker 1>too big a challenge for the Republicans? No, I think

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:48.719
<v Speaker 1>it's it's plausible. I think business interests that are enthusiastic

0:04:48.720 --> 0:04:52.520
<v Speaker 1>about this are correctly, uh, calculating that this might be

0:04:52.560 --> 0:04:55.760
<v Speaker 1>the year to actually push through a substantial amount of legislation. Well,

0:04:55.839 --> 0:04:58.560
<v Speaker 1>it's a great article with a lot of information packed

0:04:58.560 --> 0:05:01.279
<v Speaker 1>in it. That's Paul Barrett of Boomberg business Week, and

0:05:01.320 --> 0:05:06.680
<v Speaker 1>the article is entitled will the GOP finally crushed class actions?

0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:09.599
<v Speaker 1>Coming up on Bloomberg Law? Thanks so much for being here, Paul.

0:05:10.200 --> 0:05:12.800
<v Speaker 1>Coming up on Bloomberg Law, we'll look at the Republican

0:05:12.880 --> 0:05:16.080
<v Speaker 1>healthcare bill. What will it really mean? What are its

0:05:16.160 --> 0:05:19.720
<v Speaker 1>chances of passing. We'll be talking to Harry Nelson. He's

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:22.440
<v Speaker 1>a partner at Nelson Harridman and he's the author of

0:05:22.480 --> 0:05:26.520
<v Speaker 1>the book Obamacare to Trump Care, Why You Should Care