Law Commons^™

Vol. 2 No. 1, Spring 2011; Nolan & Ready--"Settling" For Less Than Perfect In Illinois When Determining The Role Defendants Play In The Litigation After They Settle, Benjamin W. Meyer

Northern Illinois Law Review Supplement

This Note examines the interplay of two decisions made by the Illinois Supreme Court during their 2008 – 2009 term—Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc. and Nolan v. WEIL-McLain. Interpreting the statutory wording of the Illinois joint and several liability statute (735 ILCS 5/2-1117), Ready held that settled defendants may not be included on jury verdict forms when apportioning fault. The later decided Nolan held that a defendant may submit evidence of settled defendants in support of his sole proximate cause defense. This Note points out that the Nolan decision renders the Ready decision unworkable, because once a jury is exposed …

The Criminal Class Action, Adam S. Zimmerman, David Jaros

All Faculty Scholarship

Over the past ten years, in a variety of high-profile corporate scandals, prosecutors have sought billions of dollars in restitution for crimes ranging from environmental dumping and consumer scams to financial fraud. In what we call “criminal class action” settlements, prosecutors distribute that money to groups of victims as in a civil class action while continuing to pursue the traditional criminal justice goals of retribution and deterrence.

Unlike civil class actions, however, the emerging criminal class action lacks critical safeguards for victims entitled to compensation. While prosecutors are encouraged, and even required by statute, to seek victim restitution, they lack …

Antitrust And Patent Law Analysis Of Pharmaceutical Reverse Payment Settlements, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Patent settlements in which the patentee pays the alleged infringer to stay out of the market are largely a consequence of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which was designed to facilitate the entry of generic drugs by providing the first generic producer to challenge a pioneer drug patent with a 180 day period of exclusivity. This period can be extended by a settlement even if the generic is not producing, and in any event all subsequent generic firms are denied the 180 day exclusivity period, significantly reducing their incentive to enter.

The Circuit Courts of Appeal are split three ways over such …