1. The Dutch proposal for collective settlements:new trends in multi party actions. An evaluation. Presentation for the British Institute for International Comparative Law 27 th of June 2005

2. 2 Outline presentation Main features Background proposal Comments Personal Note

3. 3 Main features Collective settlement out of court by defendants and representative organisations (if defendants don’t want to: (almost) end of story) Parties can jointly ask the judge to aprove it; Court of Appeal Amsterdam Damage scheduling; Opt out possibility;

4. 4 (Factual) background proposal 1986: DES litigation 1992: Supreme Court ruling ‘a rainmaker’ DES Register Centre: 18.000 in 6 weeks 440.000 (220.000 DES mothers; 110.000 doughters and sons) 1999: DES Fund and settlement (€ 34 million)

5. 5 (Judicial) background proposal Dutch Law: only collective actions for injunctive relief and ‘declarations’ Initiated by representative ‘interest organisations’ No ‘damages’ class/collective actions Defendants want final settlement (not ad hoc) Legislation is needed

6. 6 (Political) background proposal Public (and thus political) pressure to resolve the DES matter Preparation of proposal Consulations with ‘interested parties’ Not with Dutch Consumer Organisation January 2004: presentation of proposal on Collective Settlements Summer 2005: unacted 2006 (20 years later): start of distribution

7. 7 The comments Judiciary: ‘not amused’ The Bar: different reactions Nice Nice but useless Consumer organisation: ‘angry and disappointed’

8. 8 Personal note Two determinants: Working Group (the Dutch ‘troika’) Fundamental revieuw of the Dutch law of civil procedure PhD Working Group suggestions Involve judiciary in pre-action stage Less codification: more flexibility

9. 9 Personal note PhD See previous Focuss on really important matters like dealing with the ‘limited fund’-issue Pay attention to the invluence of (financial) incentives and the dynamics of collective settlements; they generate volume Consider the possibilities of ‘private law enforcement’ in ‘no bother cases’ (or large scale small claim litigation)

10. 10