In the wake of unfair bashing by the media, catalyzed by the trial bar, accusing Toyota vehicles of suffering from sudden acceleration, the Obama administration forced a recall and fined Toyota, Toyota sales plummeted, and the stock price dropped $30 billion of value. So we can safely view a $25.5 million settlement—less than 0.1% of that figure—as a nuisance settlement, albeit one that will likely pay the attorneys millions of dollars (Bernstein Litowitz and other plaintiffs' firms are seeking over $5 million) for bringing a meritless collateral suit over meritless allegations. [Reuters; LA Times; Detroit Free Press]
Toyota settles shareholder suit over sudden acceleration hysteria
Related Entries:
- The SEC Staff's Rubber Stamp
- Briefing complete in In re Online DVD Antitrust Lit. (9th Cir.)
- Amgen, Johnson & Johnson, Bernstein Litowitz, and the fraud on the market theory
- HP Inkjet oral argument
- Yuba City pays Danegeld
- Wyly v. Weiss: speaking of lack of marginal deterrence value of civil litigation...
- Why is there a single settlement class in the $2.43 billion Bank of America settlement?
- Oral argument today in In re Baby Products
- $0 shareholder derivative settlement in Johnson & Johnson
- Around the web, September 4
- Lemus v. H&R Block
- Food lawsuits
- In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation
- Update: Apple iPhone 4 bumper class action settlement
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.