Page 18 - CCCA64_2013

CCCA_V7No4_ClassAction-FIN_CCCA 13-11-25 12:35 PM Page 18 Feature n August, 2013, a proposed class action settlement of one of Canada’s largest automotive recalls featured close collaboration by plaintiff lawyers here and Iin the United States. Three Canadian plaintiff firms worked with their American counterparts in a Canadian settlement covering 1.3-million vehicles. A similar lawsuit was set- tled earlier in the United States. (The class action involved allegations against Toyota Canada of sudden gas pedal acceleration.) “It was truly cross-border in that the plaintiff group worked with the U.S. group and [Canadian] defence worked with the U.S.,” says Won Kim, princi- pal of Kim, Orr, one of three Canadian firms that prosecuted the national class action. “There was a fluid exchange of information from all the parties.” Increased co-operation between cross-border plaintiffs is one of several trends transforming — and complicating — the class action litigation land- scape with consequences for corporate in-house counsel, say defence and plaintiff lawyers. For example, some cross-border class actions seek to represent plaintiffs in Canada and the U.S., sparking occasional fights over which law firm has car- riage of the case. In some cases, class actions may be certified in Canada but not in the U.S. Furthermore, recent changes in Canadian securities law make it easier for shareholders to seek damages for alleged company financial misrepresentation. And, despite legal similarities with Canada, the U.S. has recently tightened its rules on certification and jurisdiction. Cross-border playbook Why strategy counts more than ever in cross-border class-action litigation By Jennifer Lewington 18 CCCA Canadian Corporate Counsel Association WINTER 2013