The class also includes spouses, parents, and children of the veterans born before January 1, 1984
directly or derivatively injured as a result of the exposure.4Although the Court did not create subclasses of plaintiffs, it did direct plaintiffs’ counsel to“choose representative claimants for each type of injury alleged.”5The size of the class wasrelatively large: the number of individual claimants was approximately 245,000 at the time thelitigation was resolved.63In re Agent Orange, 506 F. Supp. 762, 769 (E.D.N.Y. 1980). For a detailed history of the
proceedings in the Agent Orange litigation, see also In re Agent Orange, 818 F.2d 145 (2d Cir.
1987).4In re Agent Orange, 100 F.R.D. 718, 729 (E.D.N.Y. 1983).5Id. at 721-22.6Approximately 245,000 claims had been received by the time the district court approved the distribution plan. In re Agent Orange, 611 F. Supp. 1396, 1417 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks)SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 R&O-698027.1B - 3II.Settlement Approval/General Principles Regarding DistributionOn the eve of trial, the parties agreed to settle all class claims for $180 million.7Judge Weinstein, after conducting a number of fairness hearings, conditionally approved thesettlement amount to permit immediate work on a distribution plan.8The district courtconcluded that the settlement was fair to the plaintiffs for several reasons, including thefollowing: (1) the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to a number of factual and legal obstacles (inparticular, inadequate proof of causation and the impossibility of identifying the manufacturer ofthe herbicide to which each veteran was exposed) which made a full legal recovery doubtful; and(2) the settlement allowed the plaintiffs to avoid protracted litigation and receive a relativelyprompt recovery.9Concurrent with his preliminary approval, Judge Weinstein stated several“General Principles” to guide the parties as they developed a distribution plan. The district courtfocused on class harmony, low administrative costs, targeted use of scarce settlement funds, andprompt aid. Judge Weinstein urged that any organization established to distribute settlementfunds should promote cooperation among the members of the plaintiff class.
Otherwise, thedistrict court warned, the settlement fund “may become a reason for divisiveness and disunitythat may serve to weaken the just claims of the veterans and their ability to vindicate theirrights.”10Judge Weinstein also advised the parties to keep to a minimum the transaction costsassociated with distributing the funds by avoiding complex fact-finding and adjudication ofindividual claims.11In addition, recognizing that “[i]t is not possible for all class members to7In re Agent Orange, 818 F.2d 145, 155 (2d Cir. 1987).8In re Agent Orange, 597 F.Supp. 740, 763-64 (E.D.N.Y. 1984).9Id. at 749.10Id. at 858.11Id.In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks)SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 R&O-698027.1B - 4receive significant individual compensation,” the district court recommended that “simplecriteria for eligibility should be established to assure acceptable targeting of limited settlementfunds.”12Finally, Judge Weinstein advocated the expeditious development of a distribution plan:“It is better to make some immediate decisions concerning class benefits in order to get promptaid to some members of the class. To wait for the development of the perfect plan is to losemuch of the value of the settlement that makes money available immediately.”13The district court also made some specific observations.