While the article states the suit was
inspired by the success of Jewish groups in reclaiming assets and insurance policies from German and Swiss firms
that's not remotely true. In the case of the Holocaust survivors these were genuine assets that had been seized one generation out (from parents or grandparents).
In the case of slavery, the tactic will be as you said (and as was true with the tobacco suits) to launch as many actions in as many jurisdictions as possible, with as many dubious claims of "harm" as can be devised, until the state AGs step in to handle the overload.
Ultimately, as with the tobacco suits, a state-run entity of some sort will be erected to receive the proceeds of many no-contest settlements.
The AGs and the defendants will somehow negotiate a deal that causes the U.S. taxpayer and not the corporate defendant to pay the fees.
The state-protected settlement entities will employ or be run by a board of people like Julian Bond, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton. There will be lots of cushy benefits and power to those on the boards and to their friends and cronies.
The whole enterprise will be veiled in "law" and "justice," supported by taxpayers, and produce a vile and immensely corrupt quasi-public "reparations" organization.
In the unlikely event that they do win, they're going to regret ever filing that suit within hours. The people who actually get the money will be named, they will become pariahs throughout the nation, and race relations overall will be set back at least thirty years.