Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Was it collusion or just good business? The liability insurance crisis revisited

Article Abstract:

The combined cases of Hartford Fire v California and Merrett Underwriting v California, now before the US Supreme Court, are a significant challenge to insurance industry exemption from antitrust acts. The suits charge four key insurance companies with conspiracy to limit liability insurance availability. The alleged conspiracy started with a dispute on standard liability insurance policy forms which degenerated into a boycott of policies using these forms. Whether the boycott places insurance companies outside the McCarran-Ferguson Act antitrust exemption is one of the issues now before the court.

Author: Reske, Henry J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1993
Insurance industry, Supply and demand, Liability insurance, Conspiracy

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Judge takes lead role in Microsoft case: in a controversial ruling, Sporkin rejects antitrust consent decree

Article Abstract:

US District Judge Stanley Sporkin in Jan invoked controversial powers under the 1974 Tunney Act to reject a Justice Dept consent decree in a case accusing Microsoft of violating antitrust laws. The consent decree dealt with Microsoft's licensing agreements, but Sporkin extended his view to other monopolistic practices with which some have charged Microsoft. In so doing, Sporkin clashed publicly with the Asst Atty Gen in charge of the Antitrust Div.

Author: Reske, Henry J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1995
Microsoft Corp., Practice, MSFT, Consent decrees, Sporkin, Stanley

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Making class distinctions: critics say class action proposals encourage collusion as well as settlements

Article Abstract:

Proposed changes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 which would allow courts to deny the status if the probable relief did not equal the costs of bringing suit and to allow certification just for purposes of settlement have occasioned much controversy. Opponents of the proposals fear the former would eliminate a key deterrent to business wrongdoing, while the latter would encourage collusion between lawyers for the two sides.

Author: Reske, Henry J.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: ABA Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-0088
Year: 1997
Class actions (Civil procedure), Compromise and settlement, Class action lawsuits, Settlements (Law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Interpretation and construction, Cases, Laws, regulations and rules, Antitrust law, United States
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Prop. regs. on the definition of trust income: the best thing for life insurance planning since sliced bread! Notice 2001-10 will have dramatic effects on split-dollar arrangements
  • Abstracts: High court lifts bar to tobacco liability suits. Drug maker liable for doctor's reputation. Once shunned, surveys gain favor of courts
  • Abstracts: What's left of the single economic interest theory? The Cottage Savings regulations. Equity index swaps: an uncertain future
  • Abstracts: In opinions to clients, intellectual property lawyers face risks. Standard of care in intellectual property law opinions
  • Abstracts: Some firms keep own counsel; lawyers for and inside firm review its dealings, ethics. Former partners awarded assets; McKenna's split in L.A
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.