## Facts

- Tens of thousands of personal injury and wrongful death claims alleged asbestos exposure from products made or supplied by a group of manufacturers.
- Many defendant companies acted through the Center for Claims Resolution (CCR), a collective claims-resolution organization.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel and CCR negotiated a nationwide “settlement-only” class action intended to resolve both existing asbestos claims and claims of persons exposed to asbestos who were not yet symptomatic or had not sued.
- The complaint, defendants’ answer, and the proposed settlement were filed at the same time, with the court asked to certify a class under Rule 23 and approve the settlement under Rule 23(e).
- The settlement established disease categories, medical eligibility criteria, scheduled compensation amounts, and administrative procedures for processing claims, with limits on opt-outs.
- Objectors, including some current and potential future claimants and public-interest organizations, argued that the class was improperly structured, counsel could not adequately represent both current and future claimants, and the settlement was unfair and collusive.

## Issues

1. Whether a settlement-only class could be certified under Rule 23, including Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy and Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority, given alleged intra-class conflicts between present and future claimants.
2. Whether class counsel’s simultaneous representation of present and future asbestos claimants created an impermissible conflict of interest defeating adequacy.
3. Whether the proposed settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate to the class under Rule 23(e), considering scheduled payments, eligibility criteria, and claims procedures.
4. Whether the settlement negotiations were collusive or instead the product of arm’s-length bargaining.

## Decision

- The court certified the nationwide settlement class under Rule 23 and approved the settlement under Rule 23(e).
- The court held that simultaneous representation of present and future claimants did not, by itself, establish an impermissible conflict of interest.
- The court found Rule 23(a) satisfied due to the large class size and shared issues concerning asbestos exposure and resulting disease.
- The court concluded common issues predominated and that a class settlement was superior to individual litigation given the costs, delay, and uncertainty associated with asbestos tort claims.
- The court determined the settlement’s compensation structure and procedures were fair and reasonable and found insufficient evidence of collusion.

## Legal Principles

- A conflict of interest is not established per se by class counsel representing both currently injured claimants and future claimants when their claims are directed against the same defendants and the settlement is evaluated for actual divergence and adequacy.
- In a settlement-only class, Rule 23 requirements still apply; certification depends on satisfying numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy under Rule 23(a) and predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).
- Rule 23(e) approval requires a finding that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, assessed in light of the expected outcomes, litigation risks, delay, transaction costs, and the settlement’s claim-processing structure.
- Allegations of collusion must be supported by the record; arm’s-length, adversarial negotiations and substantiated settlement valuations support approval.

## Conclusion

The court certified a nationwide settlement-only asbestos class and approved a global settlement resolving both existing and future claims, concluding that counsel’s representation of both groups was not inherently disqualifying, common issues justified class treatment, the settlement was fair under Rule 23(e), and the record did not show collusion.


Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 157 F.R.D. 246 (E.D. Pa. 1994)