Eversheds Sutherland 11th Circuit Business Blog
content top

Divided Court Holds Settlement Agreement Between Cable Provider and Installation Contractor Not the Result of Duress

A party negotiating an agreement may employ leverage or “arm-twisting” to consummate a transaction. At some point, however, tough business tactics may result in a claim of duress, jeopardizing the validity of the agreement.  In Cableview Communications of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable Southeast, LLC, the Eleventh Circuit considered such a claim, ultimately finding in favor of...

Survey of 2017 Eleventh Circuit Decisions Published

The Mercer Law Review recently published its annual survey of noteworthy Eleventh Circuit decisions. The Class Actions article, authored by our own Tom Byrne and Stacey Mohr, analyzes the court’s 2017 decisions on CAFA jurisdiction, the impact of arbitration agreements on class actions, the preclusive effect of prior actions, class action settlements, and class certification...

A Policy-Limits Demand Under Georgia Law May Require Timely Payment as a Condition of Settlement

In Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Woodard, 2017 WL 2819729 (11th Cir. June 30, 2017), the Eleventh Circuit applied the Georgia Supreme Court’s holding in Grange Mutual Casualty Co. v. Woodard, 797 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. 2017), to hold that an insurer’s failure to deliver payment within the time required by a policy-limits demand meant that there was no binding settlement between the parties....

Deference on All Fronts to Government Settling Qui Tam Action

Deference runs throughout a decision published last week, United States v. Everglades College, Inc., 2017 WL 1658478 (11th Cir. May 3, 2017), where the court issued four holdings in connection with the government’s settlement of a False Claims Act qui tam action relating to federal financial aid funds under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The court actually consolidated...

Insurer Not Bound by Settlement That Insured Negotiated in Bad Faith

Under Florida law, a settlement may not be enforced against an insurer where its insured did not negotiate in good faith, thus failing to adequately represent the interests of the party that would ultimately have to pay the settlement. The Eleventh Circuit, in an opinion published November 17, 2016, Sidman v. Travelers Casualty & Surety, 2016 WL 6803034, affirmed the district...

« Older Entries