Xarelto Settlement: Power in Numbers
(April 23, 2019) As stated in previous Mass Tort Nexus articles, we are of the opinion that the current proposed Xarelto Settlement is “dead on arrival.” Based on our conversations with non-leadership firms, we are of the belief that there is an implacable intention to reject or recommend that their clients reject the current settlement offer.
Numerous additional firms have contacted Mass Tort Nexus since our first article was published related to the proposed settlement last week. Since that release, Mass Tort Nexus has received ongoing inquiries from firms asking the same basic question:
Do the leadership firms control enough of the client cases in the Xarelto litigation, to reach a settlement participation level acceptable to the defendant under the current proposal, without regard to the number of non-leadership firms that might reject the offer?
In order to provide an informed answer to this question Mass Tort Nexus conducted an analysis:
Mass Tort Nexus accessed the JMPL and the USDC ED Louisiana ECF links to determine how many cases are pending in MDL 2592. For this analysis we are not considering cases filed in other venues; however, there is no cause to believe that cases in other venues would be of sufficient volume to skew these findings.
According to the JPML, there are 23,866 cases pending in Xarelto MDL 2592 as of 04/15/2019. We believe no major change in these numbers has occurred in the three days that have elapsed between the latest JPML report and this analysis.
We will assume for arguments sake, that all the PSC members are going to accept the proposed Xarelto settlement. From a pure business perspective, the PSC members will be paid according to the work their firms have performed for the “common benefit”, which for many PSC firms may be a more significant sum than the fees they would earn from the clients they represent. Based on this reasoning, we will assume that all of the PSC member firms will accept the current settlement offer.
Mass Tort Nexus accessed Pacer to determine how many cases were on file for the Plaintiff Steering Committee (PSC) members.
The following are the result of that review:
|PSC Member Firm||MDL Cases|
|Morgan & Morgan||800|
|Aylstock Witkin Kreis Overholtz||515|
|Schlicter, Bogard & Denton||118|
|Ross Feller Casey||70|
|Levine Fishbein & Berman||50|
|Weitz & Luxenberg P.C.||81|
|Goza & Honnold, L.L.C.||310|
|Total Client MDL Cases PSC Members||5,929||24.82%|
|Total Client Cases MDL Non-PSC Members||17,937||75.18%|
|Xarelto MDL 2592||23866|
Based on the results of our findings, of cases filed by PSC members, “Leadership” represents 5,929 (24.82%) of the 23,866 Xarelto MDL 2592 cases on file, while non leadership firms represent 17,937 (75.18%) of the cases on file.
Therefore, the answer to the question “does leadership directly control enough of total number of Xarelto cases to meet the participation requirements by the defendant is NO, based on this informed analysis.
Based on information received from reliable sources, the “Participation Level” defendants require to “go through” with the current offer is 90%. Of course, the defendants would have the option of going through with the settlement at a participation level of less than 90% however, it would not make sense for a defendant in any mass litigation to move forward with a settlement, that left several thousand cases moving towards trial. The number of cases left unsettled is more important than the representation of that number as a percentage.
Note: Mass Tort Nexus’ analysis of the number of cases under the direct control of leadership did not include any cases filed by other firms, which may have subsequently been referred to leadership firms. Therefore, leadership may have direct control over a larger number of cases that cannot be confirmed through our analytical methodology. Without regard to the foregoing, Mass Tort Nexus was able to verify the number of cases on file by firms who have expressed an implacable intent to reject the current offer, and therefore, the conclusions reached through our analysis would not impact the unknown variable arising from cases filed by non-leadership firms, that have been subsequently referred to leadership firms.
To complete our analysis, we calculated the number of cases that could reject the settlement offer and overall participation still reach a given percentage participation level.
|Participation Level (PL)||Maximum Rejections to Achieve PL|
Based on conversations with numerous firms with “small” to “large” dockets, in the Xarelto MDL (also verified in the same manner as MTN verified leaderships client numbers), Mass Tort Nexus is of the following opinion:
Firms that have expressed their position to be in absolute rejection of the current offer, (nothing can convince them to change their minds), that the hold outs from these firms along will prevent the participation level in the settlement from reaching 80%.
Firms that are leaning toward rejection but could possibly change their minds (if they split down the middle on their final decision, half going one way and half going the other) would likely prevent the settlement acceptance level form reaching 70%.
If additional firms that have not communicated with Mass Tort Nexus also add to the “implacable rejectors” count, reaching a participation percentage acceptable to defendants becomes even less probable.
Mass Tort Nexus would like to clarify past comments, as well as comments made in this article, and those that may be forthcoming in future coverage of the proposed Xarelto settlement. Our coverage of this issue is not intended to be a disparagement of the firms in leadership in the Xarelto MDL. Leadership did not make the current settlement offer, the defendants made the offer. When a defendant approaches leadership wishing to discuss settlement, leadership engages in the discussion. When defendants make an offer, leadership presents that offer to the non-leadership firms involved in the litigation (becoming the messenger.) If the offer does not result in a consummated settlement, leadership will have to “go back to the table” with the defendants. Leadership can not be seen to have been the cause of the previous settlement offer “falling through” and retain the credibility with the defendants needed for additional rounds of negotiations. It is never our intent to “shoot the messenger” even when our opinions differ from the message.