Assessing the Good Faith of a Settlement that Affects the Rights of Non-Settling Co-Defendants
From Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s opinion in In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether ("Mtbe") Products Liability Litigation, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57504 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2008):
ExxonMobil's objections to a determination of a good faith settlement are relatively limited. It concedes that the settling parties have defined a "ballpark" for claims pertaining to contaminated wells — in other words, that the settling parties have adequately supported their estimated recovery in each case. It does not claim that there was any collusion or bad faith in settlement negotiations. However, it contends that the Court does not have sufficient information to make a determination of good faith. It argues first that the settling parties' estimated share of settling defendants' liability is not viable because it is based on a theory that might not be applied at trial, and it does not set forth each settling defendant's individual share of liability. In addition, ExxonMobil argues that the settlements cannot be approved unless a monetary value is assigned to the Treatment Protocol, in order to ensure an appropriate setoff from any recovery for threatened wells.
The objections are specific to the unique aspects of this aggregate settlement. Neither of these issues have been directly addressed by California or Illinois courts — indeed, the determination of good faith in an aggregate settlement such as this is an issue of first impression in California and Illinois. Yet courts have stressed that in determining the good faith of a settlement, "all that can be expected is an estimate, not a definitive conclusion," and the best a trial court can do is "make an educated guess." In light of the aggregate nature of the settlement, the substantial information submitted by the settling parties, and the instruction that "[a] judge charting the boundaries of good faith of necessity must avoid a rigid application of the factors set forth in Tech-Bilt," I find that the information before the Court is sufficient to make a good faith determination.
Share this article: