In Re Literary Works in Electronic Databases, 654 F.3d 242

Consolidated class actions allege copyright infringements from publishers' unauthorized electronic reproductions of freelance authors' works.
Tasini (2001) established liability for electronic reproduction without permission, guiding the consolidated litigation.
Settlement creates three claim categories (A, B, C) with distinct damages rules and a global $18 million cap plus notice/administration/attorney fees.
Category C largely comprises unregistered works; Category A/B include registered works with different damages; many authors hold multiple categories.
Settlement includes a release allowing future uses unless authors opt out or limit to past uses, with different compensation for opt-ins.
District court certified the class for settlement and approved the Settlement; the Supreme Court later held subject-matter jurisdiction over unregistered claims hinged on nonjurisdictional prerequisites.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the release extends beyond the factual predicate.	Objectors argue future-use release exceeds predicate; release should be limited to past uses.	Publishers argue future uses are encompassed by the injunctive relief and the predicate includes ongoing licensing.	Release permissible; future uses within predicate.
Whether class representatives adequately represent all subgroups.	Named plaintiffs hold A, B, and C claims, aligning interests with class as a whole.	Conflict exists because C-only claimants have distinct interests; representation may be inadequate.	Court found inadequacy; fundamental conflict identified; class certification reversed.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying the class and approving the Settlement.	Settlement process involved mediation and represents the class's interests; substantial protections exist.	Approval and certification were appropriate given procedures and protections; no fundamental conflict.	Abuse of discretion found; remand for subclassing to remedy representation concerns.
Whether subclassing is feasible and appropriate to cure conflicts.	Subclassing into A, B, C would provide targeted representation and preserve settlement.	Subclassing can be administratively impracticable; risks delaying settlement and complicating administration.	Three-subclass structure proposed as feasible; remand to implement subclassing.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 396 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2005) (releases may encompass claims not pled if based on identical predicate)
Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (U.S. 2001) (publisher liability for electronic reproduction without permission)
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (adequacy of representation requires not just aggregate fairness but protection of subgroups)
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (U.S. 1999) (subclassing may be required when settlement allocates differently across claims)
Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Health & Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 504 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) (structural protection required when settlement allocates unevenly across groups)
In re Joint E. & S. Dist. Asbestos Litig., 982 F.2d 721 (2d Cir. 1992) (subclassing considerations in complex class actions)