Staring into the political abyss
of adequacy litigation has apparently prompted some state courts to step back from the edge.
Only in the world
of adequacy litigation could this be a disappointment to the plaintiffs, but the Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) was hoping for much more.
Not exact matches
These risks and uncertainties include, among others: the unfavorable outcome
of litigation, including so - called «Paragraph IV»
litigation and other patent
litigation, related to any
of our products or products using our proprietary technologies, which may lead to competition from generic drug manufacturers; data from clinical trials may be interpreted by the FDA in different ways than we interpret it; the FDA may not agree with our regulatory approval strategies or components
of our filings for our products, including our clinical trial designs, conduct and methodologies and, for ALKS 5461, evidence
of efficacy and
adequacy of bridging to buprenorphine; clinical development activities may not be completed on time or at all; the results
of our clinical development activities may not be positive, or predictive
of real - world results or
of results in subsequent clinical trials; regulatory submissions may not occur or be submitted in a timely manner; the company and its licensees may not be able to continue to successfully commercialize their products; there may be a reduction in payment rate or reimbursement for the company's products or an increase in the company's financial obligations to governmental payers; the FDA or regulatory authorities outside the U.S. may make adverse decisions regarding the company's products; the company's products may prove difficult to manufacture, be precluded from commercialization by the proprietary rights
of third parties, or have unintended side effects, adverse reactions or incidents
of misuse; and those risks and uncertainties described under the heading «Risk Factors» in the company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10 - K and in subsequent filings made by the company with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission («SEC»), which are available on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.
In each case, the JRP's conclusions defer to government policy (arguably in contravention
of Madame Justice Tremblay - Lamer's ruling in the Kearl
Litigation) and hinge on the
adequacy of a future federal regime that consistently fails to materialize.
Massachusetts's recently concluded
litigation in the Hancock case (see my sidebar, this issue, page 28) is a good example
of how equity and
adequacy measures can play out in court.
The successes
of the
adequacy movement in state courts thus are to be seen as stepping stones to the broader arena
of national legislation and
litigation.
Examples
of these problems can be found in
adequacy litigation.
It discusses an important trend in education
litigation: the increasing reliance on theories
of adequacy to achieve high - quality education for all students.
To avoid this outcome, a new wave
of school - finance
litigation has instead endorsed an «
adequacy» claim based on state constitutional clauses that exhort the legislature to provide for a «thorough and efficient» (or similar language) system
of education.
In the first study
of opinions handed down in education
adequacy litigation between January 2005 and January 2008, this paper shows a marked shift away from outcomes favorable to
adequacy plaintiffs.
This paper examines the nature
of and reasons for courts» increasing separation
of powers concerns and then briefly explores what lessons
adequacy plaintiffs might take away for use in future
litigation.
Following two decades in which courts spurred significant reforms in our nation's neediest schools by interpreting the education clauses
of their state constitutions to guarantee an «adequate» education for all students, the years 2005 to 2008 have seen a dramatic change in the judicial response to
adequacy litigation.
In states like New Jersey, he said,
adequacy litigation has lasted 40 years and resulted in much higher levels
of school spending without marked improvement.
Eric Hanushek, an economist at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and author
of the 2009 book on school
litigation, «Schoolhouses, Courthouses and Statehouses,» said that the experience
of states over the decades should serve as a warning to the California Supreme Court not to immerse itself in school
adequacy litigation.
In all
of the current
litigation on school finance, we must ask ourselves, which is the most important consideration —
adequacy, equity, or efficiency?
The third wave
of school finance
litigation, instead
of focusing on issues
of equity, emphasize educational
adequacy.
Kansas Supreme Court Schedules Oral Arguments for School Finance
Litigation Oral arguments to address the
adequacy of the state's school finance system have been set for September.
These two concepts — funding equity and funding
adequacy — have featured in court challenges to state funding systems in different ways over time (See Overview
of School Finance
Litigation below).
[127] Professor Piché in her text Fairness in Class Action Settlements, supra at pp. 179 - 80 summarizes the various factors for the settlement approval test into seven factors; i.e.: (1) judicial risk analysis: likelihood
of recovery, or likelihood
of success on the merits weighed against amount and form
of settlement relief; (2) future expense, complexity and likely duration
of litigation; (3) class reaction: number and nature
of objections; (4) recommendations and experience
of counsel and opinion
of interested persons; (5)
adequacy of representation: good faith and absence
of collusion; (6) discovery evidence sufficient for «effective representation» and (7)
adequacy of notice
of proposed settlement to absent class members.
Unlike other
litigation funders in the market, funder members
of the ALF are subject to capital
adequacy requirements, which are independently verified on an annual basis.
Speaking at the launch, in the Royal Courts
of Justice last week, Lord Justice Jackson said the code satisfied his recommendations, including that it contain effective capital
adequacy requirements and place appropriate restrictions on funders» ability to withdraw from ongoing
litigation.