Is there any case law that sets the minimum amount in controversy to the minimum amount permissible to settle in class actions?

Question

There, of course, are such a compensatory-to-punitive damages ratio principle — even if merely in the form of fairly complex guideposts for e.g. the BMW guidepost, the just less-less-than-10x of Johnson v. Ford, etc. because it is within the forefront of public interest to prevent sentient corporate America from cruel punishments, but is there a similar at-least—x-fraction-of-amount-in-controversy with a similarly tactile set of rules for a court to not approve a class settlement and allow only proceeding to trial?

For e.g., if the class is preponderated by members of financially vulnerable individuals, or if the median amounts in controversy per member exceeds a certain proportion of the median income (e.g. a quarter of it), or if it relates to the liquidation of restitution for employment or substantially similar contracts or any other such rules that latitude of a court to approve a settlement once a complaint is file.

In other words: Are there similar complex rules to protect the average Joe too from greedy companies who appear to be basically hit the whole flock of birds with a stone kept while lawyers for the plaintiff work out a new Lambo or a house out of a 35% share of a few mill?

How is this very apparent conflict of interest resolved?

Answer 1

Yes

australia

In Australia, class action settlements require the approval of the Court before they can take effect. The representative plaintiff will make an application to the Court to approve a proposed settlement, in which they will need to provide the Court with a significant amount of information about the settlement, how it was reached, and what it will mean for group members.

The Court will generally be concerned with answering two main kinds of question about a settlement:

1. Is it a fair and reasonable settlement considering the claims made on behalf of the group members?

2. Has the settlement been reached in the interests of group members as well as the representative plaintiff, and not just in the interests of the representative and the defendant?