It all sounds so wonderfully meta and self-feeding, doesn't it? A recent study by the Goal Group, a UK-based "class action services specialist", finds it deplorable that Asian institutional investors often refrain from participating in U.S.-based securities class actions, even after settlement when there would seem to be free money for the taking; the group's managing director describes the institutions as having a "clear duty" to pursue the claims, implying perhaps that a valid class action would lie against them if they fail to cash in. Paul Karlsgodt wonders whether in future to expect "nested" class actions.
"Class Action Exposure for Failing to Claim Benefits in a Class Action Settlement?"
Related Entries:
- "A Public Letter From the Cobell Lawyers Prompts Ethics and Harassment Concerns"
- Around the web, January 27
- McClintic v. Lithia Motors
- "Missouri lawyers weigh in on class action concerns"
- CCAF Second Circuit brief in Blessing v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc.
- Courts still ignoring cy pres requirements
- Responding to Professor Fitzpatrick on class action fees
- Federal district court dismisses Netflix suit
- Hans Bader on challenging class-action abuses
- Wherein CCAF is "justly lauded"
- Debating attorneys' fees in class actions
- November 23 roundup
- Fifth and Ninth Circuits crack down on cy pres abuse
- Wal-Mart Settlement Offer: Potentially Pocket Change for Class Member Participants
- Barber Auto Sales v. UPS
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



