The U.S. Supreme Court today held that state and federal courts sitting in State A lack the power to compel someone who resides outside of State A to answer a lawsuit in State A unless the out-of-stater did something that caused harm in State A. Hurting a person who lives in State A won't do it. You pretty
Georgia
State-Action Doctrine Doesn’t Bar Antitrust Claim Against Georgia Hospital Authority
By Barry Barnett on
A "substate" governmental entity that engages in conduct that would usually violate the Sherman Act may escape liablity under the state-action doctrine if the "state" directs "substate" to do the anticompetitive deeds. But the state must "'clearly articulate[] and affirmatively express[]' state policy to displace competition." Fed'l Trade Comm'n v. Phoebe Putney Health Sys., Inc., No. 11-1160, slip…
“No-Action” Clause Barred Suit by Holders of Notes, Eleventh Circuit Holds
By Barry Barnett on
When a firm borrows money by selling an issue of bonds or notes to the public, it does so under an "indenture" that sets out the loan terms and creates a trust in favor of the buyers. The indenture also names a trustee to run the trust for the benefit of people who acquire the…