Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last Call for Non-Proportionate Bar Orders
The means by which courts implement bar orders in securities class actions continue to evolve. Currently, courts use three widely recognized methods to calculate the judgment reduction credit given to a non-settling defendant who is barred from pursuing contribution claims from a settling defendant. One method, pro rata, has already lost favor in the courts and in the near future, the second method, pro tanto, will most likely fall from grace as well. In contrast to the first two, the last method, proportionate fault, is rising in popularity due to its greater likelihood of leading to equitable results. It is, therefore, last call to those seeking to have their bar order filled by anything other than the proportionate fault method.
There can be various types of bar orders, both statutory and judicially crafted ones. Statutory bar orders under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) give non-settling defendants a mix of pro tanto and proportionate responsibility, where, regardless of what happens, they will receive a judgment reduction in an amount at least as great as the amount paid by the settling defendants and no more than required by their actual liability. A similar methodology was used in the Second Circuit's Gerber v. MTC Elec. Techs. Co., 329 F.3d 297 (2nd Cir. 2003). However, it appears likely that in the near future, the Second Circuit and others will adopt the proportionate method as a unified means to calculate judgment credit reductions. A brief overview of the three methods will be detailed below, followed by a description of the Gerber and Denney cases from the Second Circuit and an explanation of why the trend towards a single method of serving bar orders should be welcomed.
How Bar Orders Are Served
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.