Revista da EMERJ - V. 20 - N. 3 - Setembro/Dezembro - 2018

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 20, n. 3, p. 199 - 229, Setembro - Dezembro. 2018  216 nos acordos individuais, sendo inexistente naquela ordem jurídica o con- ceito de “direitos indisponíveis”, tal como conhecemos. A Rule 41(a) (1) prevê que a partir do momento em que as partes estiverem de pleno acordo, o processo prescindirá de homologação judi- cial para ser extinto 46 . Excepcionalmente, o legislador exige a aprovação judicial para o acordo. Assim, no contexto das ações coletivas 47 , para que um acordo coletivo seja eficaz e vincule os indivíduos que não tiveram o seu “ day in court” , o Poder Judiciário deve reputá-lo adequado à defesa de todos os interesses dos membros da classe. E aqui é preciso enfatizar a grande controvérsia na doutrina norte- -americana acerca da real efetividade desses acordos em matéria coletiva. Desde autores que sustentam o banimento do instituto 48 , ou mesmo que deveria receber regras mais rígidas. Contudo, apesar das sucessivas reformas implementadas, a fim de aprimorar a redação tanto da Regra 23 das FRCP como do US Code, os tribunais ainda tem que enfrentar questões tormentosas, envolvendo, por exemplo: i) conflitos intra-classe 49 , ii) desproporcionalidade do valor dos honorários advocatícios, se comparados ao valor a ser recebido por cada membro da classe 50 , iii) falta de parâmetros legais que possam orientar a 46 “Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions: (a) Voluntary Dismissal. (1) By the Plaintiff. (A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Ru- les 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared”. 47 FISS, O.M. Against Settlement, 93 Yale Law Journal 1073-90, May 1984, p. 1443. 48 “It is time to abandon the settlement class action. Notwithstanding the device’s attractiveness to defendants, to plain- tiffs’ counsel, and to judges as a means of achieving comprehensive resolutions, it does not withstand scrutiny as a legiti- mate exercise of judicial authority. There is no sound basis on which a settlement class action, in the absence of litigation class certification, should bind class members. We need to be clear on what a settlement class action is, or more precisely, what it is not. It is not a contract, at least not in the sense of an agreement to which the class members are parties. It is not an adjudication on the merits. Rather, it is an act of judicial power premised on a negotiated resolution. But the un- derlying negotiation has the odd characteristic that the negotiator for the claimants is a prospective agent who has neither been authorized to act on behalf of the claimants nor been granted the power to take their claims to trial. This feature creates an asymmetrical dynamic that negates any argument that the act of judicial power is justified by a presumption of fair valuation of claims. The problem is not one of collusion or bad faith, but rather a structural problem built into the very definition of a settlement class action”. ERICHSON, Howard M. The Problem of Settlement Class Action. 82 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 951. Acesso por meio do sítio Westlaw, em 9 de janeiro de 2018. 49 And there is also the stormy question of conflicts within the class and the consequent need to make the agreement fair and adequate for all. “But late twentieth century sensibilities regarding the nature of class conflicts that might threaten adequate representation, regarding the role of conflicts management in assuring adequate representation, and regarding sub-classing as the vehicle for achieving it, all now seem quaint and out of touch with current institutional arrangements. It’s high time to recognize the collapse of the class conflicts management regime announced in Amchem and Ortiz and to acknowledge the contours of the new regime emerging in its stead”. RATNER, Morris A. Class Conflicts, 92 Wash. L. Rev. 785. Acesso por meio do sítio Westlaw, em 11 de janeiro de 2018. 50 The proposed settlement presented in In re Electronic failed in two regards. The court caught the first with its Reed- -factor analysis, finding the actual terms of the settlement to be “not in the best interests of the proposed class members.”