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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.