Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On a procedural vote on July 8, the U.S. Senate declined to move forward a bill that would have limited the use of class-action lawsuits. Although the Class Action Fairness Act reportedly had the support of at least the 60 Senators needed to take up the bill, efforts by some to attach unrelated provisions to it led to its doom.
The Class Action Fairness Act would have authorized federal courts to hear such suits if they involved more than 100 plaintiffs and more than $5 million in damages, and only those suits in which the plaintiffs and companies were from different states. Under the terms of the bill, attorney fees would be greatly reduced in cases in which plaintiffs receive coupons redeemable for merchandise in a settlement of their claims because those fees would be based on the coupons actually redeemed, not those authorized or issued.
The bill's supporters asserted that federal courts would be less vulnerable to the practice of venue shopping and that federal judges would prove better equipped to handle large, nationwide cases. Large corporations were generally behind the bill because it would keep many cases out of state courts, which are considered more favorable toward plaintiffs than federal courts. One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), stated the day before votes were taken that there were too many instances where consumers got little or nothing from their settlements, while settling companies were left to carry on their businesses as usual. In a release issued July 7, Sen. Carper gave several examples of what he termed past abuses:
Opponents of the proposed legislation cited decreased consumer power in bringing corporations into line if their venue options were limited.
On a procedural vote on July 8, the U.S. Senate declined to move forward a bill that would have limited the use of class-action lawsuits. Although the Class Action Fairness Act reportedly had the support of at least the 60 Senators needed to take up the bill, efforts by some to attach unrelated provisions to it led to its doom.
The Class Action Fairness Act would have authorized federal courts to hear such suits if they involved more than 100 plaintiffs and more than $5 million in damages, and only those suits in which the plaintiffs and companies were from different states. Under the terms of the bill, attorney fees would be greatly reduced in cases in which plaintiffs receive coupons redeemable for merchandise in a settlement of their claims because those fees would be based on the coupons actually redeemed, not those authorized or issued.
The bill's supporters asserted that federal courts would be less vulnerable to the practice of venue shopping and that federal judges would prove better equipped to handle large, nationwide cases. Large corporations were generally behind the bill because it would keep many cases out of state courts, which are considered more favorable toward plaintiffs than federal courts. One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE), stated the day before votes were taken that there were too many instances where consumers got little or nothing from their settlements, while settling companies were left to carry on their businesses as usual. In a release issued July 7, Sen. Carper gave several examples of what he termed past abuses:
Opponents of the proposed legislation cited decreased consumer power in bringing corporations into line if their venue options were limited.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.