In a dramatic turn of events, the involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin arising out of the accidental movie set shooting were dismissed with prejudice because of prosecutors’ failure to disclose relevant evidence.

This development illustrates an important concept in American litigation, both Civil and Criminal, namely that each side has disclosure obligations to ensure that the proceedings are fair and that failing to comply with those obligations can lead to harsh sanctions.

Why Were the Criminal Charges Against Alec Baldwin Dismissed?

In the Alec Baldwin criminal case, it was alleged that he was reckless in his handling of a gun on a movie set which shot and killed a director. One of Alec’s defenses was that the shooting was a horrible accident and if anyone it was at fault, it was the armorer who was in charge of the weapons and ammunition. Baldwin alleged that the armorer was negligent in allowing a live round to get into the gun that he was using during the fatal rehearsal. Baldwin’s attorneys alleged that he was doing his job as an actor and that the armorer failed to do her job which caused the actual shooting.

What led to the dismissal of the case was the fact that a witness with ties to the armorer had come to the police with additional rounds of live ammunition which he indicated may have been on the movie set. The prosecutors did not feel that this evidence was relevant and did not disclose it to the defense, but the defense lawyers argued that this witness and evidence fit in with their theory that the armorer was responsible for allowing live rounds to be on the movie set and that the prosecution’s failure to disclose this witness and evidence prejudiced them in their defense of Baldwin.

Ultimately, the judge sided with the defense and delivered the harshest sanction available, a dismissal of all charges with prejudice. This means that Baldwin cannot be recharged criminally, although he and others still face Civil claims for Wrongful Death.

What Disclosure Obligations Exist in Criminal and Civil Cases and Why?

In both Criminal and Civil cases in America, each party has a disclosure obligation to identify all relevant evidence witnesses and produce all relevant evidence. In a Criminal case, the prosecution has a Constitutional obligation to share all of the relevant evidence with the defense to allow the defendant to investigate the charges and defend against them.

Similarly, in Civil cases (lawsuits for money), each side can conduct extensive Discovery before the case goes to Trial which allows them to learn about the evidence and theories of their opponent.

The multiple tools available to attorneys in Civil litigation include the ability to send written questions to the other side that have to be answered under oath (Interrogatories) and the ability to request the production of relevant documents. A party can also request to visit the scene of the accident and can subpoena relevant documents from third parties. In addition, each side can take Depositions, which are oral interviews under oath in front of a court reporter which allow the parties to learn information from any relevant witnesses. In a personal injury case, the defense can also have the injured party examined by a defense doctor.

All of these Discovery tools allow each side to learn about the relevant facts and legal theories being asserted. The disclosure obligations ensure that there will be no surprises if the case goes to trial. In addition, full disclosure often facilitates settlement of disputes because once the parties know all of the relevant facts and evidence, they are better able to judge the chances of winning or losing if the case is tried.

What are the Consequences of Disclosure Violations?

There can be harsh consequences for violations of the Disclosure rules. In Criminal cases like Baldwin’s, a prosecutor’s disclosure violation can lead to a Mistrial, requiring a new trial, or can even lead to a dismissal of the charges with prejudice.

In a Civil case, Discovery violations can lead to Sanctions. A party can be fined and assessed attorney fees. If the violation is serious, it can also lead to evidence being excluded or the loss of the case altogether.

These sanctions are warranted because it’s critical for both Criminal and Civil litigation proceedings to be fair to all concerned.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County based law firm MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Tim has been helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies for nearly 30 years. Tim has offices in Kennett Square and West Chester Pennsylvania. Tim can be reached at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out he website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

In a landmark 5 to 4 Decision, the United States Supreme Court in the case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma ruled that allowing the release of the Sackler family as part of the Purdue Bankruptcy was impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code.

This controversial decision invalidates a negotiated global settlement of the thousands of claims of victims of opioid injuries and deaths alleged to have resulted from the misdeeds of the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma, in the marketing and sale of the popular opioid painkiller OxyContin.

Did the Supreme Court make the right or wrong call?

What will happen with the claims now?

What were the claims Against Purdue and the Sacklers?

Purdue Pharma was a drug company owned and operated by the Sackler family. In the 1990s, Purdue developed the drug OxyContin, a powerful and addictive opioid painkiller. Purdue and individual members of the Sackler family who ran the company aggressively marketed Oxycontin and downplayed its addictive qualities.

OxyContin became wildly popular and played a central role in the opioid abuse crisis from which millions Americans and their families suffered or died. In 2007, Purdue pled guilty to criminal charges misbranding of OxyContin. Thousands of civil suits followed both by individual victims and their families and by governments alleging harm from the opioid crisis.

It is estimated that the total value of the opioid crisis is $40 trillion, which is seven times the annual spending of the United States government.

What did Purdue and the Sacklers do to try to Escape from the Claims?

Realizing that the Opioid litigation would eventually lead to their personal financial ruin, the Sackler family began a “milking“ program in which they took a large percentage of Purdue’s revenue out of the company each year and deposited it into overseas accounts and trusts to protect it from the victims and other creditors. It is estimated that the Sacklers milked a total of $11 billion from Purdue.

This milking program eventually drove Purdue Pharma (but not the Sacklers) into Bankruptcy because litigation was mounting and it became clear that Purdue’s assets were worth far less then the value of the victims’ claims.

How is Bankruptcy Supposed to Work?

Bankruptcy exists in order to allow individuals or companies who are insolvent (debts exceed assets) to receive a discharge of their debts if they offer a “full and fair surrender” of all of their assets.

A Bankruptcy Trustee is appointed to manage the process and the Debtor and its Creditors work out a proposed Plan to be approved by the Trustee and the Court. Once the Plan is approved, the assets are paid out to the Creditors and the insolvent individual or company is discharged/released from all of its debts.

How Was the Purdue Bankruptcy Unique?

The Purdue bankruptcy was unique because in addition to seeking its own discharge from the opioid claims, Purdue also sought the discharge of the Sackler family so that they would be forever released from any past or future opioid claims. In order to justify such a release, the Sackler family agreed to pay about $5 billion(over a decade) into the Purdue Bankruptcy from the $11 billion it had milked from Purdue.

Ultimately, the a majority of the victims agreed to this settlement proposal and the Sackler release. Under the settlement, individual victims would receive between $3500 and $48,000 each depending on the severity of the harm.

The Trustee agreed to approve the proposed settlement which would provide compensation to thousands of victims and their families as well as governmental entities that had made opioid claims and, in exchange, both Purdue and the entire Sackler family would be released from any past or future opioid claims.

Why did the Supreme Court Strike Down the Bankruptcy Plan?

In a close vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court Majority ruled that the proposed settlement and discharge of the Sacklers was not allowed under the Bankruptcy Act.

In the end, the reasoning was fairly simple. The Majority held that the Bankruptcy Act does not permit the release of a person or entity other than the Debtor who filed for Bankruptcy without the consent of the Creditor.

In this case, Purdue Pharma filed for Bankruptcy, not the Sacklers. However, the settlement agreement provided for a complete release of Purdue and the Sacklers. Moreover, although the Sacklers had agreed to return monies to the Purdue Bankruptcy to help fund the victims’ settlements, they were only returning a fraction of their assets, about $5 billion of the $11 billion it had milked from Purdue.

Ultimately, the Majority ruled that this non-debtor release was not permitted under the Bankruptcy Act.

What Happens to the Victims Now?

The Opinion of the Justices who dissented to this decision is critical of the basic reasoning of the Majority and laments that this decision will be devastating to the victims of the opioid epidemic.

The dissenting Justices argued that a vast majority of the victims had agreed to the proposed settlement and that the Court striking it down jeopardizes any chance at recovery because the Sacklers have shielded themselves by moving their money overseas and placing it in trusts.

It is certain that the litigation will move forward against both Purdue and the Sacklers and there will likely be more settlement talks that may or may not result in a global settlement. It remains to be seen whether the victims will do better or worse then what was proposed in the Bankruptcy settlement.

My Thougths

In my opinion, the Supreme Court did the right thing.

Bankruptcy is meant to protect people or companies who relinquish all of their assets to their creditors. It was not designed to release other related people without the creditors’ consent. In this case, the Sacklers tried to piggy back on the Purdue Bankruptcy and be released from all claims without giving up anything close to the entirety of the assets that they had milked from Purdue.

The Sacklers should be held accountable for their wrongful actions and forced to relinquish the vast majority of their assets in the event that they want to be released from liability.

It’s unfortunate that victims must wait and fight for more compensation, but it appears to me that the deal that had been struck was not fair to all concerned.

Tim Rayne is a Pensylvania Personal Injury lawyer with the Chester County law firm MacElree Harvey, Ltd. Tim helps injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation from insurance companies. Contact Tim at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

“Don’t worry, I have Full Coverage” is what many new clients tell me when I ask them to show me their Pennsylvania Car Insurance Declarations.

I hate to break it to you, but, there really is no such thing as “Full Coverage.”

It’s mandatory to have Car Insurance Coverage in Pennsylvania, so everyone has to have Coverage. Some Coverages are mandatory and others are optional.

The choices you have regarding Coverages and amounts is literally limitless and there is no such “standard package” that is titled “Full Coverage.”

What Coverage is Mandatory?

All Pennsylvania vehicle owners must carry Liability Coverage which pays for property damage and injuries they may cause while driving. The minimum Liability Coverage Limits are $5,000 for property damage and $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident for bodily injury. However, you can carry much much more Liability Coverage (and probably should in case you cause a major accident).

Medical Coverage of at least $5,000 is also required which will pay your medical bills from any vehicle related accident, as well as the medical bills for anyone else covered by the Policy usually including relatives who live with you.

What Coverage is Optional?

There are many types of Car Insurance Coverages that are useful, but optional in Pennsylvania including:

• Collision – Coverage that pays to fix or replace your care when it is damaged in an accident that was your fault.
• Lost Income, Funeral and Burial, Accidental Death – Additional Coverages that pay for losses regardless of who was at fault for the accident.
• Uninsured and Underinsured Coverage – Coverage that you purchase on your policy to pay compensation if you are injured by an accident caused by someone else who has no insurance or not enough insurance to fully compensate you.

Full Tort versus Limited Tort Choice

In Pennsylvania, you must also choose whether you want Full Tort or Limited Tort on your Policy.

Full Tort is more expensive but preserves the rights of you and your family covered by the policy to be fully compensated after a car accident caused by someone else.

Limited Tort is less expensive coverage but it limits your rights to compensation. With Limited Tort, unless an Exception applies, people covered by the policy cannot recover for Non-Economic Damages, like Pain and Suffering, unless they suffer a Serious Injury (Death, Serious and Permanent Disfigurement or Serious Impairment of Body Function.)

Tips for Your Car Insurance Choices

I recommend that you think about the following for your Pennsylvania Car Insurance:

• High Liability Limits and also consider an Umbrella/Excess Liability Policy
• Lots of Optional Coverages – Collision, Lost Wage, Funeral and Accidental Death
• Very High Uninsured/Underinsured Limits ($1 Million or more) to ensure Full Compensation even in a Death or Serious Injury case
• Full Tort not Limited Tort

MacElree Harvey, Ltd is proud to announce that partner Tim Rayne, who focuses his practice in Personal Injury Law, has been named to the Super Lawyer List and has also been honored as one of the Top 100 Super Lawyers in both Pennsylvania and Philadelphia.

“It’s an honor to be named as a Super Lawyer and to be listed on the Top 100 designations for both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. I’m also thrilled that my Business Law partner, Harry DiDonato, appears on the Top 100 lists and that over a dozen MacElree Harvey lawyers are recognized as Super Lawyers or Rising Stars” saidTim Rayne.

”I’m also incredibly fortunate to work in a practice area that I love where I get to fight for fair treatment for injured accident victims by telling their stories to insurance companies and juries. I enjoy going to work each day and feel lucky to have spent my whole legal career at a great law firm like MacElree Harvey.”

Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top lawyers in the country with a patented multiphase selection process involving peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation.The result of the annual selection process is a credible, comprehensive and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country.

Tim Rayne has been practicing Personal Injury Law for nearly 30 years, helping injured accident victims understand their legal rights and receive fair treatment from insurance companies. Tim handles a wide variety of cases including Car, Bike, Motorcyle, Truck, Bicycle and Pedestrian Accidents, Slip and Falls, Medical Malpractice and Abuse Cases. Tim can be reached at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Most Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Cases in Pennsylvania arise out of unintentional Negligent conduct. However, a wrongdoer can also be held legally liable for compensating an injury victim even if the conduct was Intentional or Criminal. The bad actor is liable for the harm caused by an Intentional or Criminal act, but the challenge is collecting the damages since insurance usually will not cover Intentional or Criminal conduct.

Legal Liability for Intentional Torts

A “Tort” is a wrongful act or omission that leads to legal liability for resulting harm (medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering, disability). A Tort can arise out of Negligence – a careless act or omission, Or it can arise out of an Intentional Act like Murder, Assault or Rape.

Intentional Torts are arguably much worse than Negligence. Such wrongs result from someone who intends to cause the harm, rather than someone who was just careless. Common Intentional Torts include Murder (intentional killing) Assault (intentional harmful touching) or even Sex Crimes like Rape.

In addition to deserving Compensatory Damages to make up for the Physical and Emotional Harm (medical bills, lost income, pain and suffering), victims of Intentional Torts can also seek Punitive Damages to punish Outrageous behavior and deter the Defendant from repeating the act.

Collection Challenges from Insurance Exclusions for Intentional or Criminal Acts

Despite Intentional Torts being strong cases, it’s often impractical to pursue them in Court because Liability Insurance Policies often exclude insurance coverage for Intentional or Criminal Acts.

If there is no Insurance, then the only way it makes sense to pursue an Intentional Tort is if the Defendant has Assets that can be pursued after the case is won or if someone else is jointly liable with the Defendant. If the Defendant has no assets, and no one else was culpable (like his employer or someone else responsible for preventing the harm), then pursuing a Lawsuit would be like trying to get blood from a stone.

The Importance of Experienced Legal Counsel

Since pursuing Intentional Torts can be fruitful because of serious injuries and egregious facts, but challenging because of Insurance Exclusions, it’s important to have your case thoroughly examined by an Experienced Personal Injury Lawyer who regularly pursues Intentional Tort cases.

You need to have a lawyer who will investigate all possible sources of insurance and assets to make sure that the victims of the Intentional Act or Crime receives Justice.

Tim Rayne is a Personal Injury Lawyer with the Chester County based Pennsylvania law firm MacElree Harvey. For nearly 30 years, Tim has been helping victims of Negligence and Intentional Torts understand their legal rights and receive fair compensation. Tim has law offices in West Chester and Kennett Square Pennsylvania and can be reached at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or you can check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.

Tim Rayne has experience helping victims of Intentional Torts including Murder, Assault, Theft and Sex Crimes.

There are billions at stake in the litigation against Monsanto that alleges that the popular weed and grass killer, Roundup, causes cancer, specifically Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Roundup has been an immensely popular product since the mid 1970’s and earns sales in the billions for its manufacturer, Monsanto. However, the product has come under fire in recent years with countless lawsuits claiming that Roundup causes cancer and that Monsanto knew about it but has campaigned to keep it quiet while it continues to sell the product.

Monsanto and injured victims have been facing off in Trials, some resulting in defense verdicts and others resulting in multi-million or even billion dollar awards of compensatory and punitive damages.

So far, Monsanto seems committed to continuing to sell Roundup and to defend the lawsuits. There is always the possibility of the lawsuits resolving in a global settlement but, so far, each case is being battled out in court.

Contact Personal Injury Lawyer Tim Rayne if you have any questions about the Roundup Litigation or any other Personal Injury topic at 610-840-0124 or trayne@macelree.com or check out his website at www.TimRayneLaw.com.