Relative to class action settlements and consent decrees.
Summary
HB 687 would change how class action settlements and judgments are handled in New Hampshire. The bill requires any class action money that cannot ultimately be distributed to class members to be escheated to the state general fund, and it expressly bars courts from using the cy pres doctrine or any other mechanism to redirect those funds elsewhere. It also prohibits class action settlements or judgments from paying entities other than class members or attorneys’ fees, and it limits attorneys’ fee awards in class actions and lawsuits seeking consent decrees to the Laffey Matrix rate unless a court decides otherwise.
In practical terms, the bill would amend RSA 524 and RSA 508:4-e and would take effect January 1, 2026. Its fiscal note anticipates a possible increase in General Fund revenue from unclaimed or undistributable settlement funds, along with a possible decrease in state litigation costs from lower attorneys’ fees, though both effects are indeterminable. The Judicial Branch also notes the possibility of a modest increase in expenditures if the bill leads to more litigation over these issues.
Impact
The bill would create a new statutory rule for class action judgments requiring undistributed or undistributable funds to be transferred to the General Fund, while eliminating judicial discretion to use cy pres or similar equitable remedies to dispose of those funds. It would also restrict settlement structures by barring payments to non-class-member entities and would impose a fee cap framework tied to the Laffey Matrix for class actions and consent decree litigation, subject to court override. These changes would directly affect class action litigants, attorneys, courts, and the state treasury, and would amend existing New Hampshire statutes governing judgments and attorneys’ fees.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill had meaningful support in the House, passing on an OTP motion by a vote of 198-165. No committee transcript is provided, so there is no recorded debate excerpt here, but the fiscal note and bill design indicate a reform-oriented approach focused on directing leftover settlement funds to the state and limiting fee awards. Overall, the bill appears to have been viewed favorably by a majority, though not without substantial opposition.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely the prohibition on cy pres distributions, the requirement that leftover class action funds escheat to the General Fund, and the limits on attorneys’ fees. Supporters would view these provisions as preventing settlement windfalls to third parties and reducing excessive legal fees, while opponents may argue that cy pres is a useful tool for distributing residual funds to related public-interest purposes and that fee caps could discourage class action and consent decree litigation. The bill also raises a policy dispute over whether unclaimed settlement money should benefit the state treasury rather than class-related charitable or remedial uses.