AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Edited Legal Collections Data

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Edited Legal Collections Data >> 2016 >> [2016] ELECD 752

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help

Klement, Alon --- "The class attorney—an agent without a principal: The Israeli case of Shemesh v. Reichart" [2016] ELECD 752; in Hensler, R. Deborah; Hodges, Christopher; Tzankova, Ianika (eds), "Class Actions in Context" (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016) 212

Book Title: Class Actions in Context

Editor(s): Hensler, R. Deborah; Hodges, Christopher; Tzankova, Ianika

Publisher: Edward Elgar Publishing

ISBN (hard cover): 9781783470433

Section: Chapter 10

Section Title: The class attorney—an agent without a principal: The Israeli case of Shemesh v. Reichart

Author(s): Klement, Alon

Number of pages: 20

Abstract/Description:

Economic literature has taught us the importance of agency problems in class actions. Class litigation involves significant investments of time, effort and financial resources, in addition to the intrinsic risk of loss without reimbursement. While class action attorneys bear the entirety of costs and risk, they enjoy only part of the returns. This discrepancy leads the attorney’s interests to diverge from those of the class. Under the simple agency model, such divergence predictably results in suboptimal investments of time and effort by the attorney, and in excess motivation to settle too early and for too little. Nevertheless, examination of the prolonged Israeli class litigation case of Shemesh v. Reichart generates a more complex picture of the class attorney's agency. The case was filed as a securities fraud class action in 1995. By 2002, most defendants had settled for an aggregate amount of 10 million New Israeli Shekels (NIS). As of that date, only two defendants still declined to settle: one was insolvent and the other bore only indirect liability for the fraud charged in the case. Nevertheless, the class attorney persisted in litigating the case against them. In doing so he performed very skillfully, argued some of Israel's most significant precedents in securities litigation, invested significant time and effort, and consistently refused to settle the case for offers he deemed inadequate.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ELECD/2016/752.html