Seven Years Since the Class Action Law Was Enacted Required Amendments to the Law

The Class Action Law created a real revolution in this key area of the law. If in the past there were instructions in the law on class action suits that were discussed in a scattered and sporadic way in various laws, as part of the Law and standards that were empowered, here was a single, clear and up-to-date mechanism that was put in place for class action suits

As part of the Law, the legal areas have been expanded in which it is possible to file a class action suit, the circle of plaintiffs represented has been expanded, the grounds and assistance that can be claimed as part of a class action have been expanded, procedures have been arranged for approving compromise settlements, a class action suit register has been established which provides information about pending class actions and those underway, and a fund has been set up for financing class actions and more.

The essence of enacting the Law has removed the suspicion that courts showed in the past to the non-routine procedural process, which earned it the nickname "the law's nuclear weapon," and since the legislation we have witnessed greater readiness by the courts to grant requests to approve class action suits.

Below are a number of issues which are problematic, in my opinion, requiring improvement or additions to the law.

It is possible to expand the grounds for a suit even with additional defendants There are many cases in which the conduct of a particular plaintiff is an example of a mode of behavior throughout the entire sector. For example, the conduct of one insurance company might characterize the conduct of all of the insurance companies in the market. In the existing situation, in order to defeat the practice, a separate suit must be filed against each and every insurance company through a customer with grounds for a personal suit against that company. The company against which a suit has not been filed continues its practice undisturbed. In appropriate cases, in which the class action suit against a certain company is recognized, and it is proven as alleged that this is conduct characterizing other companies, a procedure should be created that will allow for enforcing the ruling on other companies through a short-track process in which alleged evidence will be brought to show that they behave in the same way, and if it is not refuted, the class action will also be proved against them. In this way, the aim of the Law will be realized to privatize some of the regulatory supervision mechanism and enforce legal norms for the benefit of the public at large.

Clear arrangements in the Law that the assistance claimed within the class action also includes the damage accumulating from filing the suit until the correction of the injustice by the defendant on no few occasions, the defendant claims during the class action that as part of the suit the plaintiff is entitled to sue for support from repayment or compensation to the members of the group only for the period prior to the filing of the suit, and that he is not entitled within the suit to sue for damages that have not yet formed on the date that the suit is filed. As we know, the class action process can sometimes last many long years during which the defendant continues his conduct and damages to the group continue to accumulate. It is surely possible to claim that in accordance with the instructions of the existing Law, the court is authorized to also grant support for damages that have mounted since the date the suit was filed and until the injustice is corrected. At the same time however, in order that there will be no room for doubt and unnecessary argument on the matter, there is a need to clarify this in the Law in such a way that it is unequivocal.

There is a need to a add a basket clause that will allow for the filing of class action suits in every instance that has shared cause for a large group of people according to the existing Law, it is possible to file a class action suit only in cases for wards under the defined criteria in the appendix of the Law. Resulting from this, if a legal opposition exists that does not fall into the categories defined in the appendix, then it is not possible to file a class action suit, even if we are dealing with a case in which there is a large group of people harmed by the same injustice. Just to give an example, there is a ruling which says that students cannot file a class action suit against an academic institution, since the nature of their relations between them is not contained in the categories in the Law's appendix. Therefore, in order to realize the aims of the Law, a basket clause should be added covering the aforementioned.

Involvement by the regulator in the stage of requesting approval for a class action suit The Law encourages the filing of class action suits with the aim of assisting in the enforcement of norms that are not within the powers of the regulator to enforce. The Law is based on the assumption that the public has information to hand that is not always available to the regulator, and that the regulator does not have enough resources in order to "gain possession" of all the injustices being done to the public, and therefore the legislator gives incentives to the public to take initiatives for the benefit of the public. The regulator, for his part, has seen on more than one occasion (even if he would of course not admit to it) that the success of a class action suit is proof of his failure, and that if he were to have implemented his work faithfully, then there never would have been any need for the class action suit. This fact has led the regulator, more than once, into a defensive position, characterized by an approach that is cut off from the class action suit. Needless to say that a large portion of successful class action cases do not indicate a failure of the regulator. The Law was enacted precisely because of the assumption that the regulator does not possess all the information. In addition to fulfilling the aims of the Law in an optimal manner , it is up to the regulator to work together with the class action plaintiff, and when in receipt of a suit that seems justified, he should not wait for the results of the suit but must use the tools at his disposal (investigations, revoking licenses and the like) in order to make the class action suit instrument more effective. If such cooperation will be anchored in appropriate cases, in a mandatory manner within the Law, then the public will only gain from this.

Twitter Facebook Linkedin RSS Newsletters גלובס Israel Business Conference 2018