A recent decision by the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, could harm future Agent Orange litigation. In a “tentative” ruling, the MDL Court entered a summary judgment in favor of the manufacturers of Agent Orange, a chemical used to defoliate the forests of Vietnam.3 The summary judgment was based upon the manufacturer’s claim that they are immune from liability by virtue of the government contractor defense – the manufacturers say that the government made them do it.

A. Ex parte Life Insurance Co. of Georgia, No. 1990932, 2001 WL 499313 (Ala. May 11, 2001), reversed the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals’ holding that the plaintiff, MIS, a general agent/marketer of CHAMPUS health insurance policies, had presented substantial evidence that particular circumstances existed to impose a duty upon the defendant, Life of Georgia, to disclose information that it was planning to sell or dissolve its health insurance division. The Court acknowledged the fact that Life of Georgia had superior knowledge of the information pertaining to its intent to sell the division. However, the Court concluded that superior knowledge of a fact, without more, does not impose upon a party a legal duty to disclose such information in the context of a fraudulent suppression claim.

In March of 1997, Ms. C was 89 years old, extremely sick, and in very poor mental condition. In fact, at her worse, Ms. C could barely speak and was unable to recognize her four children when they would come to visit. Over time, it became obvious to her children that Ms. C would not live much longer, suffering as she was. In view of that, the four children agreed to read their mother’s Last Will and Testament together to see how their mother wanted her property devised.

On May 21, 2002, Merrill Lynch, one of the world’s biggest brokerage firms, agreed to pay $100 million to settle a case brought by the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, alleging that Merrill defrauded retail brokerage customers by issuing misleading “buy” recommendations on over two dozen stocks followed by Merrill’s internet analyst group.1 According to Spitzer, Merrill issued and maintained “buy” recommendations on certain stocks in order to curry favor with the issuers of those stocks in hopes of securing lucrative investment banking business from those companies in the future.

Even more so than with individual cases, most class actions settle. This is due in part to the fact that the risks of proceeding to judgment post-certification are very significant to all parties. However, many settlements are often negotiated prior to certification. In those cases, the settlement is contingent on the court certifying a class for settlement purposes only.