. . The [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23(e) standard of17In re Agent Orange, 611 F. Supp. 1396, 1400 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).18The original $180 million settlement fund had been accruing interest since the date of settlement and
totaled over $195 million by the time Judge Weinstein issued his opinion approving the settlement
fund distribution plan. Id. at 1401.19Id. at 1400.In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks)SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 R&O-698027.1B - 6fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness [with respect to class action
settlements] “applies with as much force to the review of the
allocation [plan] as it does to the review of the overall settlement
between plaintiffs and defendants.”20Judge Weinstein also, as a preliminary matter, repeated that time was of the essence: “Manyclass members have immediate needs, and much of the value of a settlement lies in the ability tomake funds available promptly.”21However, a distribution plan based on traditional tortprinciples could not, in the district court’s opinion, apply in this case. Judge Weinstein observedthat such a plan, which would require a particularized showing of individual causation andinjuries, would be impossible “because of a virtual absence of proof of causation, financiallyimpracticable because of administrative costs, and not feasible for other compelling reasons.”22B.Rejection of the PMC’ s Distribution PlanThe distribution plan submitted by the PMC would have compensated personswith any one of a list of diseases if exposure to Agent Orange could be proven.23The districtcourt rejected this plan as “essentially a tort-based compensation scheme, based upon anassumption of a causal connection between Agent Orange exposure and a given disease . . .[which] requires claimants to submit substantial medical, diagnostic and other proof.”24JudgeWeinstein repeated his earlier concern that no substantial evidence of individual or generalcausation which would link Agent Orange to particular diseases or to a specific plaintiff’sinjuries had ever been offered in the litigation.25Attempting to establish the necessary causal20Id. at 1402.21Id. at 1405.22Id. at 1402-03.23Id. at 1407.24Id.25Id. at 1408.In Re HOLOCAUST VICTIM ASSETS LITIGATION (Swiss Banks)SPECIAL MASTER’S PROPOSAL, September 11, 2000 R&O-698027.1B - 7connection would be time-consuming, psychologically difficult for the plaintiffs, and result inhigh transaction costs:Necessarily, the contemplated inquiry would involve a great deal
of work by attorneys, doctors and claims administrators.