ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes how companies that end arbitration face the risk of consumer class actions, in the face of plaintiffs firms ramping up mass arbitration proceedings.
Deal Or No Deal? Why States Are And Should Continue Rejecting The Federal Mandate On State False Claims Acts
States have been debating the merits of enacting new state
States have been debating the merits of enacting new state False Claims Acts (FCAs), or broadening existing ones, largely in response to a federal mandate included in the 2005 federal Deficit Reduction Act. The 2005 mandate dictates that to have a federally qualified FCA, the state must have a whistleblower provision targeted at Medicaid-related fraud that is at least as generous to whistleblowers as the federal civil FCA, which gives the whistleblowers up to 30% of recoveries. If a state enacts such a false claims act, the federal government will give states 10% more of the awards in cases brought under those laws.
A few states quickly passed laws to meet these standards, but most have taken a more careful and cautious look. These states want to know if the federal “deal” is worth it, both financially and in their ability to fight and deter fraud. To date, most states have not adopted these changes. This paper explains why this decision is sound from the perspectives of both economics and public policy.
We are saddened to hear of former Missouri state Senator Ed Emery’s untimely death. Senator Emery was not only a champion of tort reform, but a pillar in his community. […]
The New York trial bar may get yet another gift from the state lawmakers seemingly tied around their finger.
Lawsuit abuse across the U.S. results in more than $160 billion in excessive tort costs
Financial benefit of reforming Missouri’s tort system could support an additional 20k+ jobs & $3.38B in increased economic activity
$7 million spent in Quarter 1 of 2021 to air nearly 61,000 local legal services TV ads in Illinois