Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘parens patriae’

In keeping with the time-honored tradition of end-of-the-year top 10 lists, I’ve assembled my annual list of the top 10 most significant class action developments below.  Whether these are actually the top 10 most significant decisions over the past year may be subject to reasonable debate, so please feel free to add your own favorites in the comments section.

1. Certiorari denied in “moldy washer” cases – In my view, the single biggest development impacting class action practice over the past year was the Court’s decision not to take on the question of “issue certification” presented in the Sears and Whirlpool “moldy washer” cases.  This non-decision opens the door for significant litigation over whether isolated issues should be certified for class treatment even where significant individual litigation would be necessary following resolution of the class wide issues.

2. Judge Posner’s class action settlement decisions – Judge Posner wins the award for the jurist having the single biggest impact on class action practice in 2014.  In addition to the Supreme Court declining to take on review of his decision in one of the “moldy washer” cases, Butler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Judge Posner authored two significant (and harshly worded) decisions discussing the standards for evaluating the fairness of class action settlements, including Eubank v. Pella Corp., Nos. 13-2091, -2133, 2136, -2162, 2202 (7th Cir., June 2, 2014), and Redman v. RadioShack Corp., case number 14‐1470, 14‐1471 and 14‐1658 (7th Cir., Sept. 19, 2014).  These decisions are emblematic of a more general trend in the courts of subjecting class action settlements, especially coupon settlements, to ever-greater scrutiny.

3. Basic framework remains largely unchanged after Halliburton II – One of only three Supreme Court decisions of significance on class action issues this past year, the Court largely maintained the status quo in declining to overrule the framework for evaluating “fraud on the market” theory of reliance in securities class actions.

4. Whirlpool trial ends with victory for the defendant – Not long after the Supreme Court declined review, the first of the “issue” class cases went to trial against Whirlpool.  The trial ended in a defense verdict, although as I wrote in October, I’m not sure that’s necessarily a good thing for defendants in the long-term.

5. Court clarifies removal pleading standards in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens – In one of the Roberts Court’s most helpful class-action-related decisions, at least from a practical standpoint, the majority removed barriers to corporate defendants’ ability to remove cases under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), clarifying that jurisdictional facts need only be pled, not supported by evidence, in the notice of removal.

6. California Supreme Court issues significant decision on the use of statistical evidence to support class certification – An individual state court decision has to be pretty significant to make my annual top 10 list, but I think Duran v. U.S. Bank National Association fits the bill.  The decision is one of the most comprehensive to date in addressing the potential pitfalls of reliance on statistics as a proxy for common, class wide proof.

7. Supreme Court holds in AU Optronics that consumer actions brought by state attorneys general are not “mass actions” subject to the Class Action Fairness Act – It’s probably a misnomer to call AU Optronics a “class action” case, since the issue presented was whether actions brought by state AGs on behalf of consumers were “mass actions.”  But because the case involved interpretation of CAFA, it makes this year’s list.

8. International class and collective action litigation continues to expand – Class, collective, and multi-party actions continue to expand outside of the United States and Canada.  Examples included France joining the list of Civil Law jurisdictions in Europe to enact a “class action” law, and a group action in Austria, joined by more than 25,000 litigants, challenging Facebook privacy policies.

9. Data breach class actions proliferate – High profile data breaches and hacking incidents made news, and resulted in class actions, in 2014.  From a rash of payment card breaches impacting customers of large retailers like Target and Home Depot to the more recent Sony hacking incident, data breach class action litigation shows no signs of slowing down any time soon.

10. Supreme Court grants, then dismisses, certiorari in Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi, v. IndyMac MBS, avoiding a high court ruling on the question of whether statute of repose can be tolled for absent class members under the American Pipe tolling doctrine.  In what has become a trend of the past year, this is yet another missed opportunity for the Supreme Court to address a class action issues of significance.

Read Full Post »

Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted cert in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens, No. 13-719, in which it will take up the contours of the standard for providing factual support in a notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).  Specifically, the issue presented is as follows:

Whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or is alleging the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal” enough?

This is the third CAFA removal case that the Court has accepted in as many years.  During the October 2012 term, the Court decided Standard Fire Ins. Co. v Knowles, 133 S. Ct. 1345 (2013), in which it held that a class representative may not avoid CAFA jurisdiction by stipulating to a recovery of damages of less than $5,000,000 on behalf of members of the proposed class.  Earlier in the current term, the Court decided Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), holding that a parens patriae action brought by a state attorney general on behalf of Mississippi residents was not a “mass action” subject to CAFA.

 

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its first class-action-related decision of the 2013-14 term today, or more precisely, its first non-mass-action-related decision of the term.  In Mississippi ex rel. Jim Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., Case No. 12-1036 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2014), the Court held that a parens patriae action brought by the Mississippi attorney general on behalf of Missouri citizens was not a “mass action” subject to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  My partner Casie Collignon has a more detailed write-up on the decision at the BakerHostetler blog Class Action Lawsuit Defense.

Read Full Post »

My sincere apologies to the loyal ClassActionBlawg reader for the scarcity of new content lately. I’m on the road this week, but thought I should at least drop a note about two interesting class-action-related developments in the U.S. Supreme Court over the past week:

1) the Court granted cert in  State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., to address the issue whether parens patriae actions filed by state attorneys general seeking restitution on behalf of state citizens are “mass” actions, permitting removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).  For more on the case, see Deborah Renner’s post on the BakerHostetler Class Action Lawsuit Defense Blog.  If it were up to me, I’d go further and say that parens patriae cases are actually “class” actions under CAFA, but apparently the Court has its own idea about the scope of the issue.

2) The Court vacated Judge Richard Posner’s decision in Butler v. Sears Roebuck & Co. and remanded for reconsideration in light of its recent decision in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.  This follows the Court’s earlier decision to vacate the Sixth Circuit’s decision in In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Products Liability Litigation for the same reason.  Given the many questions left unanswered by the Comcast decision, it will be interesting to see what the Sixth and Seventh Circuits do with the moldy washer cases on remand.

Read Full Post »

From time to time we will troll the class action blogosphere for news and information about our favorite class action topics.  Here are just a few of the recent headlines from around the web.

Complex litigation as a commodity investment? 

Hedge funds have traditionally been willing to explore new territory in the non-traditional investment sphere.  At least some appear to be finding potentially attractive opportunities in so-called Litigation Funding Companies.  LFC’s are often run by former lawyers–some with an investment or hedge fund background.  They identify potentially profitable lawsuits and agree to fund the litigation (to a point) in exchange for a percentage of the settlement.  Three Geeks and a Law Blog has an interesting multi-part series on this new trend.  Read it here.

http://www.geeklawblog.com/2012/03/rise-of-third-party-litigation-funding.html

10 ways to defend class actions using Walmart v. Dukes

Andrew Trask, class action attorney at McGuire Woods and co-author of the Class Action Playbook recently put together a list of takeaways explaining how class action defense attorneys can use Wal-mart v. Dukes.  His post links to a power point presentation he recently gave at DePaul University.  It’s a quick read and worth checking out.

http://www.classactioncountermeasures.com/uploads/file/DePaul%20-%20Defense.pdf

BP Settlement

The BP litigation in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill off the Gulf Coast has settled for all claimants except the federal government.  The Mass Tort Litigation Blog has been providing regular updates including this post discussing what’s known about the settlement.  It appears the settlement will consist of two separate agreements. One will resolve economic claims while the other will resolve medical claims.  The Blog cites news reports explaining that “either the settlement will be paid by the $20 billion fund BP created to compensate victims or the fund will close and be replaced by a court overseen claims facility.”

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/

Irregular transaction was not enough to show a Bank had actual knowledge of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

Race to the Bottom contributor Susan Beblavi unpacks the Eleventh Circuit’s semi-recent opinion in Lawrence v. Bank of America, D.C. Docket No. 8:09-cv-02162-VMC-TGW, 2012 LEXIS 777 (11th Cir. Jan. 11, 2012).  In that case, putative class action plaintiffs alleged the Bank of America substantially assisted in a Ponzi scheme operated by one of its account holders.  The Eleventh Circuit upheld the District court’s dismissal of the case reasoning that even though BOA authorized numerous large transactions by the account holder, the bank wasn’t required to investigate them under Florida law.  Moreover, the court found the purported red flags were too weak to infer that it was plausible that the bank had actual knowledge of the alleged scheme.  Read more at the link below.

http://www.theracetothebottom.org/home/2012/3/8/lawrence-v-bank-of-america-allegations-of-actual-knowledge-o.html

Parens Patriae actions, class actions?

The 9th Circuit holds that parens patriae actions under Nevada law are not class actions removable to federal court under CAFA, adding to a circuit split on the issue.  For a succinct explanation, see Katherine Heckert’s post at the Carlton Fields Class Action Blog:

http://www.carltonfields.com/classactionblog/blog.aspx?entry=521

Walmart v. Dukes reasoning reverses class certification again

Skaddon’s Russell Jackson posts that the Louisiana Supreme Court has again reversed class certification due to problems of commonality and causation.  Previously, the Louisiana high court adopted the U.S. Supreme Court’s common question analysis in Walmart v. Dukes to reverse class certification in Price v. Martin.  In a recent per curiam opinion in Alexander v. Norfolk So. Corp., No. 11-C-2793, Slip op. (La. Mar. 9, 2012), the Louisiana Supreme Court cited Price for the proposition that class certification requires a rigorous analysis and significant proof of a common question. The case involved a chemical spill involving train cars. Hundreds complained of a bad smell and irritation to their eyes, throat and nose.  This led to a class action that was certified by the trial court and affirmed by an appellate court.  It turned out, each putative class member would need individual toxicology testing to determine whether they are among the minority of people who are susceptible to very low levels of the released chemical.  The Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately reversed class certification based on the lack of predominance of common issues, and the need for individualized trials.  Read more here.

http://www.consumerclassactionsmasstorts.com/2012/03/articles/predominance-1/once-again-the-louisiana-supremes-reverse-class-certification-citing-causation-as-a-problem/

The Perils of Electronically Stored Information

Todd Dawson’s post on Baker Hostetler’s Employment Class Action Blog illustrates just how badly things can go when a key “smoking Howitzer” document slips through defense counsel’s ESI review and ends up in the plaintiffs’ hands.  In an FLSA Collective Action, the employer produced two million documents. Prior to the production, the employer’s attorneys used various search terms to identify privileged documents.  Inevitably, one got through – a bad one. Even worse, the court concluded that the employer had waived privilege.  Thus, not only did the plaintiffs’ counsel get to see the document, they got to use it as well.  To see how this disaster could have been avoided, read more here.

http://www.employmentclassactionreport.com/flsa/inadvertent-esi-disclosure-of-attorney-client-communication-waives-privilege-in-flsa-collective-acti/

Read Full Post »

Having been focused on several other speaking and writing projects recently (in addition to my day job), it’s taken longer than I had hoped to comment on several recent class-action-related decisions by the federal circuit courts of appeals.  Here’s a brief summary of three recent decisions of note:

Washington State v. Chimei Innolux Corp., No. 11-16862 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2011) – joining the Fourth Circuit in holding that a parens patriae action brought by state attorneys general or other state officials for the benefit of the state’s citizens is not a “class action” for the purposes of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Klier v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., No. 10-20305 (5th Cir., Sept 27, 2011) – holding in the absence of an express provision in the settlement agreement to the contrary that unclaimed funds should be distributed pro rata to class members who participated in the settlement as opposed to being given to charity as a cy pres distribution.  Take note of the concurrence by Judge Edith H. Jones, which makes a strong argument that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary or express waiver of the right to recover unclaimed funds, the equities favor returning those funds to the defendant rather than paying them to the class or distributing them to charity.

Esurance Ins. Co. v. Keeling, No. 11-8018 (7th Cir., Sept. 26, 2011) – holding that when punitive damages are at issue, the correct standard is whether it would be “legally impossible” for the plaintiff to recover an amount of punitive damages that, when combined with the amount of compensatory damages sought, would exceed the $5 million amount in controversy threshold under CAFA, but concluding that it was not legally impossible under Illinois law, even though it was unlikely, that $4.4 million in punitive damages could be awarded in a case where the compensatory damages were slightly more than $600,000.

A great resource for more timely commentary and analysis on recent class action decision in the federal courts of appeals is Alison Frankel’s blog On the Case.

Read Full Post »

One of the more significant issues relating to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) that has percolating through the federal courts over the past few years is whether parens patriae actions brought by state attorneys’ general seeking to recover damages for their citizens are “class actions” that can be removed to federal court.  On Friday, a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision holding that parens patriae actions are not class actions subject to removal under CAFA.  West Virginia v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 11-1251 (4th Cir. May 20, 2011) (to be published).

CAFA Law Blog has been covering this issue extensively in recent months, and I expect they will have an entertaining post about the case in the coming days.  For CAFA Law Blog posts on the topic, see this link.

Read Full Post »

Rita Robinson, who writes the Boomer Consumer blog for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, posted an entry titled Attorneys general oppose DirectBuy’s class-action lawsuit settlement discussing an amicus brief filed by Attorneys General from 34 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia objecting to a proposed settlement in a consumer fraud class action brought against online wholesale club DirectBuy, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

A copy of the brief is available for download here courtesy of the Washington Attorney General’s website.   The essential theory of the case was that the defendant “represented that paid DirectBuy memberships entitle customers to purchase goods from manufacturers and suppliers at actual cost when, in fact, Defendants receive kick-backs from the suppliers and manufacturers out of the purchase price paid by DirectBuy members — resulting in members paying more than the actual cost for such goods.”  Amicus Brief at 4.   The 34-page brief raises a variety of objections to the settlement, but the primary beef is that only benefit to claimants was membership extensions or discounts on future memberships, which they argue amounts to a “coupon” settlement.

The case illustrates the practical impact of a key but often overlooked component of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the requirement that “appropriate” government officials be given notice of a proposed class action settlement in federal court.   This is a topic that was the subject of a series of CAB posts in 2008, which you can access at the links below:

As noted in June 25, 2008 entry, although CAFA requires that notice be given to state and federal officials, it is rare for those officials to take any action to object to the settlement after they receive it.  One exception, as exemplified by the DirectBuy case, is a coupon settlement.  (The other thing that can get officials’ attention is where the release in a proposed settlement purports to bind state officials, such as a clause that purports to release parens patriae claims by the state.)

Although CAFA requires notice to state officials, it does not give them any power to prevent the settlement.  In fact, state officials do not even have the express power to formally object to a settlement, which is why when they do act, it is usually in the form of an amicus (friend of the court) brief.  Ultimately, approval or disapproval of the settlement is still up to the trial court.  However, it should go without saying that if you’re a party or attorney seeking approval of a class action settlement, it’s much better not to have government officials filing an amicus brief critical of your settlement.

Read Full Post »

Here are some blog entries from the week that was that might be of interest to class action practitioners:

Class Action Decisions

For a “brief” commentary on a case addressing the removability under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) of a class action counterclaim by a plaintiff/counterclaim defendant, see this guest commentary from Dallas attorney Jonathan Bridges on CAFA Law Blog:

http://www.cafalawblog.com/-case-summaries-guest-commentary-fourth-circuit-to-decide-whether-to-let-att-pull-up-its-shorts-class-action-to-federal-court.html

Class Action Defense Blog summarizes a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a state’s parens patriae action brought on behalf of its citizens was removable under CAFA:

http://classactiondefense.jmbm.com/2008/09/cafa_class_action_defense_case_19.html

Mass Tort Defense summarizes a Kentucky federal court decision denying class certification in a toxic tort lawsuit in part based on plaintiffs’ ability to articulate an appropriate class definition:

http://www.masstortdefense.com/2008/09/articles/federal-court-rejects-toxic-tort-class-action/

Consumer Law & Policy Blog summarizes a September 8, 2008 decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals applying Missouri law in upholding a class arbitration ban in a consumer class action involving prepaid gift cards:

http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/09/eighth-circuit.html 

Class Action Commentary

Training Marketer discusses potential impacts from a class action settlement involving claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeking access to a retail store’s website for persons with disabilities…

http://trainingtime.wordpress.com/2008/09/15/target-settles-class-action-ada-lawsuit-is-your-site-compliant/

… more on providing online access to visually impaired users from That Credit Union Blog

http://thatcreditunionblog.wordpress.com/2008/09/16/providing-online-accommodations-for-the-visually-impaired/

… and The Industry Standard:

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/09/15/target-pact-wont-lead-web-access-standards

The Defense Base Act Blog discusses possible impacts that the Defense Base Act could have on pending class action litigation involving claims that a company’s acts of not training its employees properly for work in Iraq has led to injuries to other employees:

http://defensebaseactblog.com/2008/09/12/will-the-defense-base-act-foil-the-recent-class-action-law-suit-against-kbr/

Class Action Scandals

Health Care Renewal comments on the University of Minnesota’s recruitment of a health insurance company executive who resigned in the wake of a stock option backdating scandal:

http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/09/university-of-minnesota-courts-mcguire.html

Class Action Reform

Watchdog Blog endorses proposed legislation that would prohibit class arbitration waivers in credit card agreements:

http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2008/09/arbitration-wil.html

Class Action Settlements

Overlawyered updates earlier commentary on a $688 million attorneys fee awarded in an Enron class action settlement:

http://overlawyered.com/2008/09/coughlin-stoia-amlaw-daily-and-prof-john-coffee-contd/

The Consumerist reports on frustrations in trying to participate in a class action settlement after receiving notice:

http://consumerist.com/5048989/join-the-verizon-etf-class-action-if-they-would-only-let-you

Class Action (and Related) Scholarship

California Punitive Damages provides a synopsis and brief commentary on a recent scholarly work entitled “Punitive Damages and Class Actions” written by Professors Fransesco Parisi (Minnesota) and Marta Cenini (Milan)…

http://calpunitives.blogspot.com/2008/09/law-review-article-punitive-damages-and.html

… and more on the same article from Mass Tort Litigation Blog:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/mass_tort_litigation/2008/09/parisi-and-ceni.html

Point of Law reviews a paper entitled “The Use of Litigation Screenings in Mass Torts: A Formula for Fraud?” authored by Cardozo Law Professor Lester Brickman:

http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2008/09/brickman-of-1-m.php#more

Wage Law recommends the paper “Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof” by Vanderbilt Professor Richard A. Nagreda:

http://wagelaw.typepad.com/wage_law/2008/09/class-certification-in-the-age-of-aggregate-proof.html

Class Action News

Fitz & JenLuke Ford.net, paidContent.org, and Portfolio.com discuss an ERISA class action filed by editors, writers, and other employees of a major newspaper recently acquired through the alleged misuse of an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP): 

http://www.fitzandjen.com/2008/09/jen-if-you-thin.html

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=5006

http://www.paidcontent.org/entry/419-jack-nelson-among-current-ex-tribune-co-staffers-trying-class-action-su/

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/09/16/la-times-refugees-sue-for-control-of-paper

Class Action Trends

The D&O Diary discusses the latest in options backdating settlements:

http://www.dandodiary.com/2008/09/articles/options-backdating/options-backdating-settlement-news-apple-and-unitedhealth/

Real Lawyers Have Blogs discusses a well-known plaintiffs’ class action firm’s use of social networking website Twitter to find prospective class representatives:

http://kevin.lexblog.com/2008/09/articles/social-networking-1/law-firm-using-twitter-to-find-plainitiffs-for-class-action-law-suit/

Rhondak discusses the use of small claims court as a “poor man’s class action” to vindicate consumer’s rights:

http://rhondak.livejournal.com/1036526.html

Read Full Post »

It is well-established that a properly tailored class action settlement release can preclude future actions by absent class members, even those who don’t respond to or otherwise participate in the settlement.  (As an example, see this recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals opinion).  So, in agreeing to a class action settlement, the defendant assumes that it is buying peace from civil liability from all future actions arising out of the same alleged conduct.  There are a few notable exceptions, including the threat of opt out litigation (see this earlier ClassActionBlawg.com entry) and the possibility of collateral attack if the settlement does not meet due process standards (see this article by Gerson H. Smoger summarizing possible arguments supporting collateral attack).  For the most part, defendants’ counsel can minimize the risk of these residual exposures in crafting the terms of the settlement in the first place.  (See this article on claims-made settlements).

Possible residual exposures due to the threat of governmental action, however, are more difficult to avoid.  A settlement in a class action will generally buy the defendant protection from private civil exposure, but it may not prevent potential regulatory penalties or possible criminal liability.  It may also not protect the defendant from actions by state Attorneys General, the Federal Trade Commission, or other regulators for injunctive relief.  While it may not be possible to completely shield a client from these exposures, a lawyer can at least advise a client of their possibility and advise about other possible steps to mitigate them, such as voluntary changes in policy.  For an excellent discussion of the interplay between private class actions and the concurrent powers to enforce consumer’s rights by state attorneys general and the FTC in antitrust matters see this presentation by Patricia A. Conners of the Florida Attorney General’s office, from the FTC’s website. 

Even beyond these more obvious state and federal law enforcement and regulatory powers, there has been a growing trend in recent years for attorneys general and other governmental agencies to use the doctrine of parens patriae to also pursue the monetary claims of private individuals.  For a general discussion of the origins and recent trends in the use of this doctrine in aggregating private tort claims, see this uncredited Columbia Law Article entitled Constituting Parens Patriae.  Under the parens patriae doctrine, a governmental entity pursues claims for monetary relief for the benefit of its citizens by essentially standing in their shoes and pursuing the citizens’ claims in a representative capacity. 

Because of the representative nature of parens patriae actions, a propertly tailored release on behalf of class members in a civil case–at least theoretically–should foreclose the possibility of a governmental entity bringing an action for the same monetary relief.  But try telling that to the government.  A defendant that reached a settlement for 50% of the potential compensatory damages might find itself facing a suit by the government for the other 50%.  Similarly, a defendant that reached a claims-made settlement where not all potential claimants responded might face a parens patriae action filed on behalf of those who didn’t participate.  Or maybe the state or federal agency takes the position that it isn’t bound by the fact that amounts were paid at all.  The client can end up facing the possibility of defending against exactly the same monetary exposure for civil damages that it faced in the civil lawsuit.

Thankfully, most state officials have better things to do than file copycat lawsuits to try to squeeze more money out of a corporation that entered into a reasonable settlement of civil claims.  As a state official that I spoke to recently noted, AG’s consumer protection efforts are more commonly focused on exercising their law enforcement powers to prevent ongoing or future harm than on trying to ensure civil compensation for alleged victims of past civil wrongs.  On the other hand, the same official commented that one area of focus in reviewing the notices now required to be sent under the Class Action Fairness Act (see previous entry here and here), is to look for settlement agreements that are attempting to release potential parens patriae claims by the state or otherwise seek to interfere with the state’s sovereign power.

As a practical matter, because government officals typically do leave civil damages enforcement up to private civil enforcement in the courts, post-settlement government action is not likely to become an issue except in those cases where a governmental agency was already investigating or pursuing action relating to the subject matter of the civil dispute even before the settlement.  In those situations, it is a good idea to try ensure some resolution with the government before finalizing the settlement in the civil case.  Patricia A. Conners’ commentary cited above provides some examples of cases in which this type of global resolution has occurred in the antitrust context.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »