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  218 dos chamados “coupon settlements” existe, ainda, uma regra especial no US Code 56 . De início, há uma previsão de natureza genérica, qual seja, a prévia aprovação de seus termos pelo tribunal 57 . Além dela, a Regra 23 (e) estabelece outras em seus itens (1) a (5), sendo que a prevista no item (4) refere-se exclusivamente às ações de clas- se certificadas sob a Regra (b) 3 e dispõe que o tribunal poderá recusar a aprovação de um acordo, a menos que se assegure aos membros do grupo uma nova oportunidade de exercer o seu direito de autoexclusão da ação 58 , o que não se verifica no direito brasileiro e se constitui objeto de forte crítica doutrinária 59 . Há, destarte, uma maior cautela com a necessidade de notificação dos membros da classe em uma ação pautada na Regra 23 (b) 3, coerente com o aspecto individual dos interesses em disputa 60 . Assim, o juiz tem a função de garantir os direitos dos membros au- sentes e os direitos do grupo, que poderiam ser violados caso essa previsão não existisse 61 . Dentro desse quadro, a pretensão, na origem, será individual, it is fair, reasonable, and adequate. (3) The parties seeking approval must file a statement identifying any agreement made in connection with the proposal. (4) If the class action was previously certified under Rule 23(b)(3), the court may refuse to approve a settlement unless it affords a new opportunity to request exclusion to individual class members who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but did not do so. (5) Any class member may object to the proposal if it requires court approval under this subdivision (e); the objection may be withdrawn only with the court’s approval. 56 28 USC. § 1712. Coupon settlements. (…) (e) Judicial scrutiny of coupon settlements. In a proposed settlement under which class members would be awarded coupons, the court may approve the proposed settlement only after a hearing to determine whether, and making a written finding that, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members. The court, in its discretion, may also require that a proposed settlement agreement provide for the distribution of a por- tion of the value of unclaimed coupons to 1 or more charitable or governmental organizations, as agreed to by the parties. The distribution and redemption of any proceeds under this subsection shall not be used to calculate attorneys’ fees under this section. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1712, access em 17 de janeiro de 2018. 57 In deciding whether to grant preliminary approval of proposed class action settlement, court determines whether proposed settlement discloses grounds to doubt its fairness or other obvious deficiencies such as unduly preferential treatment of class representatives or segments of class, or excessive compensation of attorneys, and whether it appears to fall within range of possible approval. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 23(e), 28 U.S.C. A. In re National Football League Players’ Concussion Injury Litigation, 301 F.R.D. 191 (2014). 58 “Reasonable settlement notice may require individual notice in the manner required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B) for certification notice to a Rule 23(b)(3) class. Individual notice is appropriate, for example, if class members are required to take ac- tion—such as filing claims—to participate in the judgment, or if the court orders a settlement opt-out opportunity under Rule 23(e)(3).” Committee Notes on Rules. 2003 Amendment, Disponível em: < http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/ rule_23 >. Acesso em 18 de junho de 2013. 59 GIDI, Antonio. A Class Action como instrumento de tutela coletiva de direitos. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2007, p. 326. 60 In order to justify a departure from usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of individual named parties only, class representative must be part of class and possess same interest and suffer same injury as class members. Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 23, 28 U.S.C.A. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). 61 PINHO, Humberto Dalla Bernardina de. The Undertaking of Adjustment Of Conduct In Brazilian Collective Proce-