Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Class-Action Limitation Bill Fails on Senate Floor
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:
- In an Illinois suit against bottled water company Poland Spring, consumers claimed the company's water was not pure and was not from a spring. Under the settlement, consumers received coupons for discounts on Poland Spring water, but their attorneys collected $1.35 million for their efforts. Meanwhile, the company admitted no wrongdoing and was not required to change the way it bottles or markets its water.
- In a Texas class action settlement with movie-rental company Blockbuster over late fees, class members received coupons on future movie rentals, while their attorneys received $9.25 million.
- In an Alabama class action lawsuit against the Bank of Boston, in which more than 700,000 plaintiffs took part, the plaintiffs won their case about mortgage escrow accounts but received payments of only about $10 each, while having $90 deducted from each of their accounts to pay their attorney fees of $9.5 million.
Opponents of the proposed legislation cited decreased consumer power in bringing corporations into line if their venue options were limited.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.