SHOULD COUPONS & CREDITS BE USED TO SETTLE TRAVEL CLASS ACTIONS ?

SHOULD COUPONS & CREDITS BE USED TO SETTLE TRAVEL CLASS ACTIONS ? Paper Presented At The Third International Travel And Tourism: Policy, Law And Management Conference, May 7-9, 2000
Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

By Judge Thomas A. Dickerson1 In the United States both state1 and federal2 courts have procedures permitting the aggregation of similar claims into a class action where the named plaintiff prosecutes a claim on behalf of hundreds or thousands of absent class members. Australia3 and the Canadian Provinces of Quebec4, Ontario5 and British Columbia6 have class action procedures similar to those in the United States. Broad Spectrum Of Claims Travel class actions have been brought against A. Airlines for (1) physical injuries [ 60,000 flight attendants injured from second hand smoke in passenger cabins7 ], (2) flight delays [ 8,000 passengers delayed and many stranded for 8 hours in aircraft waiting on runways during snowstorm8 ], (3) cancellations [ 2,000 passengers stranded when tour operator goes out of business9 ], (4) overbooking10,(5) discrimination11, (6) misrepresented cargo rates12, (7) misrepresenting an air carrier's liability for lost jewelry13, (8) price fixing [ nine domestic airlines fix prices for air transportation between city pairs by signaling price changes on CRS14, three airlines conspire to fix and stabilize prices on North Atlantic routes15 ], (9) price overcharges [ consumers challenge airline's 25% cancellation fee16 ], (10) improper collection of taxes [ airline collects federal excise tax from passengers during period when taxes were not authorized by Congress17 ], (11) imposing unreasonable penalties for replacing lost tickets18, (12) mismanaging consumer funds for the payment of charter tours19, and (13) failing to deliver advertised itineraries and hotel accommodations20. B. Cruiseships for (1) physical injuries [ contaminated food and water21, vomiting and diarrhea22, Legionnaires' disease23, respiratory attacks24 ], (2) delays, port-skipping and itinerary changes25, (3) discomfort aboard ship [ QEII sailed before major refitting work on cabins and other facilities was completed26, malfunctioning toilet flushing systems27, breakdown of air conditioning system and lack of fresh water28 ], (4) misrepre- sentations [ capability of ship to meet scheduled itinerary29, availability of promised services, facilities and activities aboard ship30 ], (5) deceptive port charges [ " The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that...each passenger is required to pay an amount referred to as a ` port and handling charge `...often exceeds $150 per passenger...Cunard intentionally misleads passengers into believing that these port charges are paid to port authorities...Cunard does not disclose that only a small percentage of the separate port charge is actually turned over to port authorities...the substantial balance is pocketed by Cunard "31 ], (6) lost, damaged or stolen baggage [ baggage loss resulting from fire onboard ship32 ] and (7) bumping [ some passengers " bumped " from QEII33 ]. C. Railroads, Buses & Rental Car Companies for (a) physical injuries34, (b) misrepresenting the nature, sponsorship and licensing of interstate ski tour services35, © price overcharges [ rental car company imposed $1.00 surcharge on customers' bills36, taxi company uses " fast meters "37, unconscionable replacement gasoline charges38 ], (d) age discrimination [ rental car companies refused to rent cars to persons under the age of 2539 ], (e) price fixing [ insurance tie-in and fleet purchase price fixing conspiracy 40 ], (f) failure to deliver [ insurance coverage41, rental cars as part of package tour42 ]. D. Hotels, Resorts & Time Shares for (a) physical injuries [ failing skywalks43, food poisoning44, gastrointestinal disorders45, " crater lake crud "46 ], (b) overbooking [ hotels on tours to England and Germany overbooked and consumers sent to inferior hotels47 ], © misrepresentations [ of major renovations at hotel and the availability of Glatt Kosher food48, of the quality of the services49, of the availability of accommodations in Munich, Germany50, of the availability of numerous free sports activities and proximity to the beach51 ], (d) price overcharging and price fixing [ overcharges for telephone calls52,room rate overcharges53, overcharges for out of state residents54 ], and (e) time share " bait & switch "55 schemes and other frauds56. E. Entertainment Suppliers & Vacation Clubs for fraud and misrepresentation [ season ticket holders sue football team that relocates57, season ticket holders sue hockey team that goes out of business58, season ticket holders sue basketball team when star player is traded59, campground facilities and services inadequate60 ]. F. Tour Operators for (a) physical injuries [ bus accident61, gastrointestinal disorders62 ], (b) flight delays63 and cancellations64, (c) hotel " bait & switch " schemes65, (d) misrepresentations [ available hotels and itineraries66, Glatt kosher food67, services, facilities and proximity to the beach68 ] and (e) mismanagement and theft of consumer deposits69. How To Settle Travel Class Actions At some point after the class action is commenced the parties will, typically, begin settlement discussions. Ideally, the class members should receive compensation of (a) travel services not delivered, (b) out of pocket expenses incurred and (c) the discomfort endured, discounted by the difficulty of proving the case and the ability of plaintiffs and defendants to finance continued litigation. Cash Settlements Are The Best When possible travel class actions should be settled with a cash payment to each class member. For example, in Neilan v. Value Vacations, Inc70 [ Appendix A ] in excess of $1.5 million was tendered by the defendants for distribution to class members who filed claims and the payment of attorneys' fees and costs. The distribution formula71 provided for various payments depending upon each class members' circumstances. In Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line Limited [ Appendix D ] cruise passengers were offered cash and credits towards the purchase of a future cruise. And in Irving Trust Company v. Nationwide Leisure Corporation [ Appendix F ] class members were offered specific sums of money for being accommodated at an inferior hotel in London, England or Munich, Germany [ $50.00 ] or having suffered through a flight delay during a snowstorm [ $35.00 ]. Issuing Coupons For The Purchase Of Travel Services There are occasions when it may be appropriate for the court to approve a non-cash settlement which provides for the distribution of coupons or credits for the purchase of travel services from the defendants72. For example, In Re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation73 [ Appendix B ], In re North Atlantic Air Travel Antitrust Litigation [ Appendix C ], Pickett v. Holland America Line-Westours [ Appendix E ], Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line Limited [ Appendix D ] and Geelan v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.74 class claims were resolved, in whole or in part, with the issuance of coupons or credits for the purchase of future travel services from the defendants. The reasons for allowing these types of settlements include recovery of de minimus damages which would make the cost of distribution of each individual's cash award higher than that individual's claims, and the inability to identify class members. Another reason that may be acceptable to a court is the defendant's inability to afford to pay a cash recovery to the class. In this instance, as a threshold issue, the court should require that the defendant affirmatively establish its financial inability to pay cash. Without such a showing, a non-cash settlement on the grounds of " poverty " should not be approved. In all cases, non-cash settlements must be carefully examined by the court for adequacy since such settlements are generally worth less to consumers than cash and may benefit the defendant and class attorneys more than they benefit class members. Yet these settlements are justified because they solve manageability problems and require a defendant to disgorge improperly obtained monies. Transferability Typically, non-cash settlements such as coupons will require the class member to make a purchase of specific travel services which the consumer may not want. As a result, a settlement that relies on the distribution of coupons should provide that the distributed paper be convertible to cash either by redemption of or allowing them to be transferable to others. In one instance, to assist class members to convert their certificates to cash, the defendants agreed to " establish a clearinghouse for the purpose of helping those certificate holders desiring to find buyers "75. The court approved the settlement stating " that there will be a lively market for certificates ". A non-cash settlement may be acceptable if the coupons are convertible into cash albeit at a discount76. In any event, without a feature allowing the conversion of coupons into cash by making them transferable or otherwise, the court should reject a non-cash settlement. Redemption Rate The most attractive feature for defendants of a non-cash coupon settlement is that, for a variety of reasons, not all of the issued coupons will be redeemed and used by class members. In fact, the average redemption rates on food and beverage coupons, have consistently been between 2% and 6%77. In evaluating the merit of a non-cash settlement, the only proper means of measuring true value is by estimating the actual redemption rate of the offered coupon78. Unfortunately, in approving non-cash settlements most courts have neglected to require post settlement tracking of how many class members actually redeem the coupons. In one of the few cases for which this data was available, the claim rate was only 0.54%79, and the subsequent coupon redemption rate was even lower. Such a low redemption rate makes a mockery of the concept that class members should receive value for settling their claims. This is especially true when class attorneys are paid in cash while the class receives coupons of dubious value. To prevent this emasculation of the settlement concept the court should require that tere be a 100% redemption of the offered coupons. This means not only that the coupons must be transferable and cash convertible, but the defendant must continue to issue coupons until the agreed upon cash face value of the settlement is reached80. Time Of Redemption The time of redemption is an important factor in measuring the actual value of coupons81. If the retailer is aware that the consumer intends to use a coupon he may increase the sale price to compensate for the reduced payment. This potential problem was circumvented in Branch v. Crabtree82, a consumer class action alleging misrepresentations in the sale of Hyundai motor vehicles. A proposed settlement provided for the issuance of $1,000 certificates towards the purchase of a new or used car. The certificates could be withheld by the consumer until he or she had negotiated the best price. At that point the certificate could be produced for a further reduction in the vehicle price. The Problem Of Attorneys Fees Non-cash settlements must be carefully reviewed by the courts, not the least reason being that there is an opportunity for substantial self-dealing on the part of class counsel. Considering the low redemption rate of coupon settlements, defendants may be willing to pay inordinately high cash fees to class counsel in return for support in promoting a non-cash settlement in which the class receives near worthless coupons83. Certainly, fee awards should not be based on a percentage of an estimated settlement value which itself is based upon an estimated redemption rate84. To prevent this opportunity for abuse, the court should require that class counsel accept all or a substantial portion of his fee in the same non-cash consideration being offered in settlement85 or fees should be based upon the actual recovery to the class. The rationale for requiring class counsel to share and share alike with class members is that this ensures value for the non-cash component on the theory that class counsel would not accept as a fee something that is relatively worthless. Conclusion The settlement of travel class actions with the issuance of coupons or credits for the purchase of travel services from the defendants can be good for business and good for the consumer. Such settlements, however, must be carefully designed so that consumers actually receive something of value in return for releasing their claims against defendants. FOOTNOTES 1 Thomas A. Dickerson is a Judge on the Westchester County Court, New York State, USA and has a Web Page at http: members.aol.com/judgetad/index.html. Judge Dickerson is the author of Travel Law, Law Journal Press, 1981-2000, updated biannually, http://members.aol.com/travellaw/index.html , Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, 1988-2000, updated annually, http://members.aol.com/class50/index.html, and over 170 articles on consumer law, travel law and class actions.1 . See Dickerson, Class Actions : The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, 1981-2000, p. 1-23. " With the exception of Mississippi and Virginia, every state has enacted some form of rule of civil procedure which directly pertains to class action litigation. In addition, some states have enacted consumer protection statutes which set forth class action procedural rules applicable to cases arising from unfair and deceptive trade practices and/or false advertising. "2 . See Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3 . See Spaareboom, Class Actions Australian Directions, Phillips Fox 1997, Adelaide ( " Class actions are becoming an increasingly common feature of the Australian legal landscape...Example(s) ...are the US Dalkon Shield litigation, the silicon implant litigation both in the United States and Australia, and on the local front, peanut butter and NSW oyster actions...salmonella outbreaks..." )4 . The Province of Quebec enacted a class action statute in 1978. See Report on Class Actions, Ontario Law Reform Commission (1982) pp. 70-76.5 . See Sutherland v. Canadian Red Cross Society, 17 O.R. 3d 645, 21 C.P.C. 3d 137 ( Gen. Div. 1994 )( certification denied to mass tort brought by persons infected with HIV from tainted blood supplies ).6 . See Sullivan, A Guide to the British Columbia Class Proceedings Act, Butterworths, Toronto, 1997.7 7. See Broin v. Philip Morris Company, 641 So. 2d 888 ( 1994 )( certification granted ).8 . See Koczara v. Wayne County, Index No. 99-900422, Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct., Michigan ( certification granted ); Schomer v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., Index No: 99-903531, Wayne Cty. Cir. Ct., Michigan ( certification granted ). See also: New York: Liechtung v. Tower Air, Inc., New York Law Journal, January 11, 1999, p. 34, col. 3 ( N.Y. Sup. )( flight misrepresented as " non-stop " stops over in Paris causing a 2 hour and 16 minute delay in arriving in Tel Aviv; certification granted ); Parra v. Tower Air, Inc., New York Law Journal, July 22, 1999, p. 30, col. 1 ( N.Y. Sup. )( class action alleging air carrier violated D.O.T. regulations [ 14 C.F.R. Part 250 ] in overbooking passengers dismissed as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act ).9 . See Neilan v. Value Vacations, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 1227 ( S.D.N.Y. 1985 )( certification granted )( notice of proposed settlement at Appendix A ).10 . See e.g., District of Columbia Circuit: Adelman v. UAL, Inc., 25 CCH Aviation Cases 17,709 ( D.C.D.C. 1996 )( passenger's state law overbooking class action dismissed; no federal question jurisdiction ). State Courts: New York: Parra v. Tower Air, Inc., New York Law Journal, July 22, 1999, p. 30, col. 1 ( N.Y. Sup. ).11 . See Mendelson v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 18 CCH Aviation Cases 17,166 ( N.Y. Sup. 1983 )( overbooking; certification denied ).12 . See Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Federal Express Corp., 25 CCH Aviation Cases 17,519 ( 6th Cir. 1996 )( fraud claims dismissed as preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act ).13 . See Greeley v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 85 F.R.D. 697 ( S.D.N.Y. 1980 )( air carrier misrepresents its liability for lost jewelry; certification denied ).14 . See In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 677 ( N.D. Ga. 1991 )( certification granted ) ( notice of proposed settlement at Appendix B ).15 . See In re North Atlantic Air Travel Antitrust Litigation, Index No: 84-1013, D.C.D.C. ( notice of proposed settlement dated Appendix C ).16 . See Johnson v. American Airlines, Inc., 25 CCH Aviation Cases 17,269 ( Ill. App. 1996 )( claims not preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act ).17 . See Kaucky v. Southwest Airlines Co., 25 CCH Aviation Cases 18,055 ( 7th Cir. 1997 )( claims dismissed; passengers seeking tax refund which can only be recovered from government ).18 . See Blackner v. Continental Airlines, 311 N.J. Super.10, 709 A. 2d 258 ( 1998 )( claims dismissed as preempted by Airline Deregulation Act ).19 . See Neilan v. Value Vacations, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 431 ( S.D.N.Y. 1987 )( partial summary judgment for class of passengers ). See also: Eleventh Circuit: In re Arrow Air, Inc., 85 Bankr. Rep. 886 ( S.D. Fla. 1988 )( global settlement of class action against charter air carrier, escrow banks and tour operator for stranding of passengers ).20 . See Forde v. Anjoy Travel Ltd., 16 CCH Aviation Cases 18,134 ( S.D.N.Y. 1982 )( changes in tour itinerary and hotel accommodations; certification denied ).21 . See Bentkowski v. Marfuerza Compania Maritima, S.A., 70 F.R.D. 401 ( E.D. Pa. 1976 )( certification granted ).22 . See Hernandez v. The Motor Vessel Skyward, 61 F.R.D. 558 ( S.D. Fla. 1973 ), aff'd 502 F. 2d 1278 ( 5th Cir. 1975 ).23 . See Freeman v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 1994 WL 689809 ( S.D.N.Y. 1994 )( certification granted ).24 . See Mullen v. Treasure Chest Casino, LLC, 186 F. 3d 620 ( 5th Cir. 1999 )( certification granted ).25 . See e.g., Second Circuit: Desmond v. Holland America Cruises, N.V., 1981 A.M.C. 211 ( S.D.N.Y. 1981 )( port skipping; certification denied ). Third Circuit: Casper v. Cunard Line Ltd., 560 F. Supp. 240 ( E.D. Pa. 1983 )( itinerary changes; certification denied ). State Courts: New York: Simon v. Cunard Line Ltd., 75 A.D. 2d 283, 428 N.Y.S. 2d 952 ( 1980 )( itinerary changes; certification denied ); Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc., 468 N.Y.S. 2d 873 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1980 )( port skipping; tolling ).26 . See Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line Ltd., Index No. 95 Civ. 1325 (HB)( S.D.N.Y. )( notice of proposed settlement at Appendix D ).27 . See Kornberg v. Carnival Cruises Lines, Inc., 741 F. 2d 1332 ( 11th Cir. 1984 )( certification granted ).28 . See Simon v. Cunard Line Ltd., 75 A.D. 2d 283, 428 N.Y.S. 2d 952 ( 1980 )( certification denied ).29 . See Casper v. Cunard Line, Ltd., 560 F. Supp. 240 ( E.D. Pa. 1983 )( certification denied ).30 . See e.g., Second Circuit: Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line Ltd., Index No. 95 Civ. 1325 (HB) ( S.D.N.Y. )( notice of proposed settlement at Appendix D ). Third Circuit: Donnelly v. Klosters Rederi A/S, 515 F. Supp. 5 ( E.D. Pa. 1981 )( dismissed; forum non conveniens ). State Courts: New York: Gottlieb v. March Shipping Passenger Services, 67 A.D. 2d 879, 413 N.Y.S. 2d 679 ( 1979 )( certification denied ).31 . See Cronin v. Cunard Line Limited, Index No. 115899/96 ( N.Y. Sup. May 20, 1997 )( complaint dismissed; time limitations in cruise contract enforced ), aff'd 672 N.Y.S. 2d 864 ( N.Y. App. Div. 1998 ). See also: Florida: Latman v. Costa Cruise Lines, N.V., 2000 WL 121896 ( Fla. App. 2000 )( certification granted ); Renaissance Cruises, Inc. v. Glassman, 738 So. 2d 436 ( Fla. App. 1999 ) ( certification granted ). Washington: Pickett v. Holland America Line, Index No. 39791-5-1 ( Wash. App. Feb. 20, 1997 )( time limitations governed by Washington consumer protection statute and not maritime law; notice of proposed settlement dated July 20, 1998 at Appendix E ).32 . See Cada v. Costa Line, Inc., 93 F.R.D. 95 ( N.D. Ill. 1981 ) ( certification granted in prior order; claims by class members who settled with cruise line dismissed ).33 . See Charleston-Coad v. Cunard Line Ltd., Index No. 95 Civ. 1325 (HB)(S.D.N.Y.)( proposed settlement dated November 15, 1995 at Appendix D ).34 . See e.g., Third Circuit: Peters v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 966 F. 2d 1483 ( 3d Cir. 1992 )( train crash; settlement notice proper ); Sala v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 120 F.R.D. 494 ( E.D. Pa. 1993 )( train crash; certification granted );Daye v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 344 F. Supp. 1337 ( E.D. Pa. 1972 )( bus crash; certification denied ). State Courts: Indiana: In re: Train Collision at Gary, Indiana on January 18, 1993, 670 N.E. 2d 902 ( Ind. App. 1996 )( train crash ).35 . See Colligan v. Activities Club of New York, Ltd., 442 F. 2d 686 ( 2d Cir. 1971 )( certification denied ).36 . See Cotchett v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 56 F.R.D. 549 ( S.D.N.Y. 1972 )( certification denied ).37 . See Daar v. Yellow Cab Co., 67 Cal. 2d 695, 62 Cal. Rptr. 724, 422 P. 2d 732 ( 1967 )( certification granted ).38 . See e.g., California: Lazar v. The Hertz Corp., 143 Cal. App. 3d 128, 191 Cal. Rptr. 849 ( 1983 )( certification granted ). New York: Weinberg v. The Hertz Corp., 69 N.Y. 2d 979, 516 N.Y.S. 2d 652 ( 1987 )( certification granted ).39 . See People v. Alamo Rent A Car, Inc., 174 Misc. 2d 501, 664 N.Y.S. 2d 714 ( 1997 ).40 . See Rental Car of New Hampshire v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 496 F. Supp. 373 ( D. Mass. 1980 )( certification granted in part ).41 . See Wiener v. Avis Rent A Car, 318 So. 2d 565 ( Fla. App. 1975 )( certification denied ).42 . See Agosto v. Leisure World Travel, Inc., 36 Ohio App. 2d 213, 304 N.E. 2d 910 ( 1973 )( certification granted ).43 . See In re Federal Skywalk Cases, 93 F.R.D. 415 ( W.D. Mo. 1982 ), rev'd 680 F. 2d 1175 ( 8th Cir. 1983 )( certification denied ).44 . See McFadden v. Staley, 687 So. 2d 357 ( Fla. App. 1997 )( certification granted ).45 . See Reis v. Club Med, Inc., 81 A.D. 2d 793, 439 N.Y.S. 2d 127 ( 1981 )( certification denied ).46 . See Joachim v. Crater Lake Lodge, Inc., 276 Or. 875 ( Ore. Sup. 1976 )( contraction of " crater lake crud "; certification denied ).47 . See Irving Trust Company v. Nationwide Leisure Corp., 95 F.R.D. 51 ( S.D.N.Y. 1982 )( certification granted ).48 . See Smith v. Atlas International Tours, 80 A.D. 2d 762, 436 N.Y.S. 2d 722 ( 1981 ).49 . See King v. Club Med, Inc., 76 A.D. 2d 123, 430 N.Y.S. 2d 65 ( 1980 )( certification granted ).50 . See Dupack v. Nationwide Leisure Corp., 79 A.D. 2d 568, 417 N.Y.S. 2d 63 ( 1970 )( summary judgment denied ).51 . See Guadagno v. Diamond Tours & Travel, Inc., 89 Misc. 2d 697, 392 N.Y.S. 2d 783 ( 1976 )( certification granted ).52 . In re Hotel Telephone Charges, 500 F. 2d 86 ( 9th Cir. 1974 ) ( certification denied ).53 . See In re Hawaiian Hotel Room Rate Antitrust Litigation, 438 F. Supp. 936 ( D. Hawaii 1977 )( consolidation of five class actions ).54 . See Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels, 126 Cal. Rptr. 811, 544 P. 2d 947 ( 1976 ).55 . See F.T.C. v. Paradise Palms Vacations Club, Index No. C911160V ( W.D. Wash. 1981 )( advertising for resort time shares focused on availability of Hawaiian condos when only 20% of total time shares condos were in Hawaii ).56 . See Breslerman v. Dortem, Inc., 320 So. 2d 442 ( Fla. App. 1975 )( a portion of the leased condo recreation property was located beyond the mean high water mark; certification denied ).57 . See Beder v. Cleveland Browns, Inc., 129 Ohio App. 3d 188, 717 N.E. 2d 716 ( 1998 )( certification granted ).58 . See Skalbania v. Simmons, 443 N.E. 2d 352 ( Ind. App. 1982 ) ( certification granted ).59 . See Strauss v. Long Island Sports, Inc., 60 A.D. 2d 501, 401 N.Y.S. 2d 233 ( 1978 )( certification denied ).60 . See Meachum v. Outdoor World Corp., 171 Misc. 2d 354, 654 N.Y.S. 2d 240 ( 1996 )( certification denied ).61 . See Shomberg v. Club Med, Inc., New York Law Journal, June 1, 1978, p. 10, col. 2 ( N.Y. Sup. 1978 )( certification denied ).62 . See Reis v. Club Med, Inc., 81 A.D. 2d 793, 439 N.Y.S. 2d 127 ( 1981 )( certification denied ).63 . See Irving Trust Co. v. Nationwide Leisure Corp., 95 F.R.D. 51 ( S.D.N.Y. 1982 )( certification granted ).64 . See Neilan v. Value Vacations, 605 F. Supp. 1227 ( S.D.N.Y. 1985 )( certification granted ).65 . See e.g., Second Circuit: Irving Trust Company v. Nationwide Leisure Corp., 95 F.R.D. 51 ( S.D.N.Y. 1982 )( certification granted ). Seventh Circuit: F.T.C. v. World Travel Vacation Brokers, Inc., 761 F. Supp. 68 ( N.D. Ill. 1991 ).66 . See e.g., Second Circuit: Forde v. Anjoy Travel, Ltd., 16 CCH Aviation Cases 18,134 ( S.D.N.Y. 1982 )( certification denied ). State Courts: New York: Spatz v. Wide World Travel Services, inc., 70 A.D. 2d 835, 417 N.Y.S. 2d 62 ( 1979 ).67 . See Smith v. Atlas International Tours, 80 A.D. 2d 762, 436 N.Y.S. 2d 722 ( 1981 ).68 . See Guadagno v. Diamond Tours & Travel, Inc., 89 Misc. 2d 697, 392 N.Y.S. 2d 783 ( 1976 )( certification granted ).69 . See e.g., Second Circuit: Neilan v. Value Vacations, Inc., 116 F.R.D. 431 ( S.D.N.Y. 1987 )( failure to segregate consumer funds; partial summary judgment awarded ). Third Circuit: MCA Travel v. Wilbur Savings & Loan, 94-CV-5020 (JHR) ( D.N.J. Dec. 14, 1995 )( mismanagement of consumer deposits; certification granted ).70 . See In re Arrow Air, Inc., 85 Bankr. Rep. 886 ( S.D. Fla. 1988 )( global settlement ).71 . See Neilan v. Value Vacations, Inc., 21 CCH Aviation Cases 18,319 ( S.D.N.Y. 1989 ).72 . See Dickerson, Class Actions: The Law of 50 States, Law Journal Press, 1981-2000, Section 9.01[3][c]. Web Page at http://members.aol.com/class50/index.html.73 . See In re Domestic Air Transportation Antitrust Litigation, 137 F.R.D. 671 ( N.D. Ga. 1991 )( certification granted ).74 . See Geelan v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. 15 CCH Aviation Cases 18,356 ( N.Y. Sup. 1980 ), aff'd 83 A.D. 2d 538, 441 N.Y.S. 2d 474 ( 1981 )( flight coupons equal in value to the money lost when consumers stranded ).75 . See In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litigation, 1983-2 CCH Trade Cases 65,680 ( D. Conn. 1983 ).76 . See Langford v. Bombay Palace restaurants, 1991 US Dist. LEXIS 4730 ( S.D.N.Y. 1991 )( coupons could be redeemed at 30% of face value ).77 . See Weinstein, " The Love/Hate Dynamics: Coupons Issued By Manufacturers " 71 Progressive Grocer 117 ( May 1992 ).78 . See Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483 ( 1996 )( settlement of coupons redeemable for $400 off price of new vehicle approved; estimated coupon redemption by 65,000 creating a settlement value of $26 million unrebutted by objectors ).79 . See In re Cuisinart Food Processor Antitrust Litigation, 1983-2 CCH Trade Cases 65,680 ( D. Conn. 1983 ).80 . See Feldman v. Quick Quality Restaurants, Inc., New York Law Journal, July 22, 1983, p. 12, col. 4 ( N.Y. Sup. )( settlement provided for the issuance of food coupons with a minimum value of fifty cents, which defendants were required to keep issuing and distributing to consumers until the agreed upon face value of the settlement was reached ).81 . See e.g., California: Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483 ( 1996 )( coupons redeemable for twelve months for $400 off purchase price of new vehicles ). Illinois: Gordon v. Boden, No.9 CH 6531 ( Ill. Cir. Ct. Cook Co. July 14, 1995 )( vouchers providing cash refund of $1.32 upon submission of two proofs of purchase have a one year redemption period ).82 . See Branch v. Crabtree, Index No. 15822/89, N.Y. Sup. West. Cty. Oct. 31, 1995.83 . See In re General Motors Corp. Pickup Truck Fuel Tank Products Liability Litigation, 1995 WL 223208 ( 3d Cir. April 17, 1995 ) ( $1,000 coupons for purchase of truck; settlement of little benefit to class members but generated $4 million in legal fees ).84 . See Dunk v. Ford Motor Company, 48 Cal. App. 4th 1794, 56 Cal. Rptr. 483 ( 1996 )( coupon settlement approved; fee application of $985,000 based upon a percentage of an estimated value of redeemed coupons of $26 million rejected; percentage method of awarding fees should only be used when common value is certain or an easily calculable sum of money ).85 . See Aburime v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., No. 3-89-402 ( D. Minn. Aug. 16, 1991 )( cash and $200,000 in non-transferable credit for travel ).