A settlement has been reached with Maxwell for USD $300,000.
A settlement has been reached with Maxwell for USD $300,000.
Settlement Class Members who wish to apply for compensation under the settlements must apply no later than January 15, 2020. Claims that are not made…
A settlement has been reached with PLDS totaling over $5 million.
First, please contact Class Counsel by emailing or phoning Kimberley Hill at [email protected] or 1-800-689-2322. Class Counsel may be able to answer your question or resolve your concern.
You may also consider participating in the webcast “town hall” meeting (see FAQ#51) or listening to the recorded webcast (audio only) (see FAQ#54).
If you still do not agree, you have the right to object to the Court. The Court will consider any comments or objections it receives. You can object by sending your objection in writing to Class Counsel (see FAQ#44 for names and addresses) by July 17, 2015.
You can also come to the Court hearing. It will be held on July 24, 2015, starting at 10:00 a.m., in the Vancouver Courthouse at 800 Smithe Street. If you come, you may be allowed to speak to the Court.
No. In a settlement, the defendants always never admit that they did anything wrong. In this lawsuit Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers specifically say that they do not admit they did anything wrong.
The limitation risk, litigation risk, and appeals risk all apply to all class members in the same way.
However, reliance risk applies differently to some class members than to others (see FAQ#10).
Class Counsel think it would have been easier for class members approaching retirement to prove that they reasonably relied on misrepresentations. In contrast, it would be harder for young class members to do so.
Even after a trial, the lawsuit may not be over. The losing side can appeal the decision. This is the “appeals risk”.
If one side appeals the decision it can take years to resolve the lawsuit.
There are always risks involved in bringing lawsuits – this is called “litigation risk”. In this case, the main risk was that the defendants might be able to prove at trial that they did nothing wrong.
Limitation risk is about how long it took to start this lawsuit after the conversion.
In law, you have only a specific number of years after something happens to start a lawsuit about it. This is called a “limitation period”. If you wait too long, your lawsuit is thrown out and you lose completely.
If we had gone to trial in this case, there was a serious risk that the court would decide that we had missed our limitation period. If so, we would have lost the case entirely. That is the “limitation risk”.
Reliance risk has to do with whether a claimant made the decision to convert from the DB to the DC plan because they relied on what Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers told them.
One of the plaintiffs’ main arguments in this case was Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers made some misleading statements in encouraging people to convert to the DC plan. These statements are called “misrepresentations”.
The plaintiffs also argued that if Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers had not made these misrepresentations, fewer people would have converted their pensions. This is called “reliance” – each class member must have relied on the misrepresentations to be entitled to any money for their losses.
The law also requires people to act reasonably. In the context of misrepresentations, it has to be reasonable for a person to have relied on the misrepresentations.
If this lawsuit had gone to trial, each class member would have had to prove that they relied on the misrepresentations. This also means that each class member would have had to prove that (acting reasonably) they would not have converted their pensions if there had been no misrepresentations. This is the reliance risk – the risk that class members would not be able to prove that they relied on the misrepresentations.
Class Counsel concluded that it would have been easier for some class members to prove this than others. For instance, for a class member who was young in 1992, it was reasonable to decide to convert. That is because a young class member is more likely to change careers or employers before retiring, and there are benefits to being in a DC plan if you expect to change careers or employers. This will make it harder for young class members to prove that they reasonably relied on the misrepresentations.
In contrast, for a class member who was nearing retirement in 1992, converting was much less reasonable. It would have been easier for older class members to prove that they relied on the misrepresentations.
The representative plaintiffs met with Class Counsel to hear why we recommended the settlement. Then they also met with a retired judge, who was completely independent, and discussed the settlement with him without Class Counsel present.
In the end, the representative plaintiffs agreed with Class Counsel that this settlement was a good idea because there were many risks at trial (see FAQs #10-14), and there is a benefit to getting the money sooner(see FAQ#13).
As Class Counsel, we do not agree to a settlement – but we do recommend that clients agree to a settlement if we think it is a good idea.
As described in the answer to FAQ#7, the settlement amount is not “calculated” in the sense that most people would understand.
We recommended this settlement because:
We did not calculate the settlement amount. It is the result of negotiation. Negotiation is more of an art than a science, and settling is about trading risk for certainty.
If we had gone to trial, we might have obtained more money. But we might also have obtained less, or nothing at all. That is the “risk” of going to trial. In addition, going to trial is expensive in both lawyers’ time and in money (expert fees and other out of pocket expenses).
A settlement is much more certain – the amount is set. We lose the opportunity to get more, but we also no longer have the possibility of getting less or nothing at all.
We start out by calculating what we think we would win after trial if we won absolutely every argument. This is our best case scenario.
Then we think about how likely we are to get that amount, and what amounts are more likely.
Then we negotiate back and forth with the defendants.
In the end, we try to get to a number that is within the range of reasonable outcomes at trial. That is where we consider this settlement amount to be.