This Act amends the Delaware Antitrust Act (“DAA”) (Chapter 21, Title 6 of the Code) to provide indirect purchasers who have been harmed by violations of the Delaware Antitrust Act the ability to sue for damages. Indirect purchasers of a product or service in the chain of distribution are often the ones who bear the burden of any overcharges from antitrust violations such as price-fixing. Direct purchasers and others in the chain of distribution of the affected product or service often have the ability to pass the overcharge through the chain of distribution to end users. This will align Delaware with at least 36 other states which currently allow for a cause of action for damages for indirect purchasers. Often, end users who make purchases in Delaware, primarily Delaware residents and businesses, are excluded from making claims against multimillion dollar settlement funds set up to compensate indirect purchasers for transactions made in other states that do authorize lawsuits for damages for indirect purchasers. To avoid complicated proof issues related to the pass through of any overcharge through the chain of distribution of a product or service, the Act creates a presumption that any overcharge paid by the first purchaser as a result of a violation of the DAA is passed through to the end user. Also, to simplify issues of proof, the Act provides a plaintiff may elect 25% of the consideration paid for the goods or services in connection with the transaction affected by an illegal restraint of trade as an alternative liquidated damage amount to actual harm. To allow Delaware consumers and businesses to fully take advantage of the remedies provided by this Act, the Act creates a private right of action. Delaware is one of only 2 states that do not provide for a private right of action under their state antitrust law of general applicability. Currently, only the Attorney General has a right to bring actions under the DAA and the Attorney General does not have the resources to review or participate in every national antitrust action. This will ensure Delaware indirect purchasers receive the benefits of private enforcement of the DAA. Section 2 of the Act creates a Delaware state law equivalent to Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the federal antitrust statute, which establishes three offenses commonly termed “monopolization,” “attempted monopolization,” and “conspiracy to monopolize.” Delaware is only 1 of 9 states that does not have a state law equivalent to Section 2 of the Sherman Act and its addition to the DAA is needed to ensure the remedies under the DAA including a right of recovery for indirect purchasers are available to the Attorney General and to Delaware consumers and businesses. Section 3 of the Act modifies the confidentiality restrictions of materials produced to the Attorney General pursuant to an investigative demand. It would allow for the materials to be shared with the Attorney General’s agents such as consultants, experts, electronic discovery platform vendors and economists which would be necessary for the Attorney General to decide on whether the law has been violated and how best to remedy the violation. The Act would also allow the Attorney General to share materials produced pursuant to an investigative demand with federal or state law enforcement officers that agree to keep the information confidential and use it only for official law enforcement purposes. Likewise, the Act requires the Attorney General to keep materials provided by other law enforcement officers received under similar process confidential. These provisions will make it easier for the Attorney General to work together with other federal and state law enforcers in enforcing state and federal antitrust laws. Section 4 of the Act provides an alternative calculation for civil penalties for violations of the Delaware Antitrust Act. Under certain facts and circumstances, the current maximum penalty for a violation of the DAA may be lower than the amount of the gain a violator may obtain by violating the DAA making any penalty a cost of doing business and an insufficient deterrent to violate the law. The alternative calculation provides for an assessment of a civil penalty of up to twice the gross gain or loss associated with the violation. This is like the alternative method for calculating federal criminal fines for the same conduct. Section 4 also authorizes a Court to award investigative costs, expert witness fees, and attorneys’ fees to the Attorney General when the Attorney General successfully brings a law enforcement action to enforce the DAA. Currently, a Court may only award attorney’s fees and expert costs to the Attorney General when the Attorney General brings an action on behalf of a public body or natural persons. Section 5 of the Act creates a right for indirect purchasers who have been harmed by violations of the DAA to sue for damages. It creates a presumption that overcharges paid by the first purchaser as a result of such violations are passed to the end user, and allows a plaintiff to seek liquidated damages in the amount of 25% of the consideration paid, as an alternative to seeking damages for actual harm incurred. Section 6 of the Act clarifies that the Court of Chancery has exclusive jurisdiction of all state court actions or proceedings under the DAA. The Act also makes several clarifications throughout the DAA to recognize it is often federal courts exercising supplemental jurisdiction deciding claims arising under the DAA.
Sponsored bills
This Act implements a recommendation from the December 31, 2023, Report of the Retiree Healthcare Benefits Advisory Subcommittee. Under this Act, the state group health insurance program must include a pensioner coordination of benefits policy for eligible pensioners who were first employed by the State on or after January 1, 2015, and are eligible for health care coverage through their employer that is not through a plan under Chapter 52 of Title 29. The new pensioner coordination of benefits policy begins July 1, 2027, and must be comparable to the exiting coordination of benefits policy for the spouse of a state group health insurance program participant who is eligible for health care coverage through the spouse's own employer. This Act also codifies the existing spousal coordination of benefits policies for the state group health insurance program. The existing spousal coordination of benefits policies and the pensioner coordination of benefits policy created under this Act apply to all participants in the state group health insurance program, which includes regular officers or employees, eligible pensioners, and individuals eligible under § 5208 and § 5209 of Title 29. In addition, this Act makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.
This Act increases the amount of the annual appropriation to prefund future State employee retiree health insurance as recommended by the Retiree Healthcare Benefits Advisory Subcommittee of the State Employee Benefits Committee. Like other required contributions to the Other Post-Employment Benefits Fund (OPEB) Fund, this appropriation must be included in the review of and plan for proposed expenditures that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget submits to the Governor and in the Governor's Budget Appropriation Bill. This Act also revises existing law to allow the current practice of making the annual payment to the OPEB Fund of 1% of the operating budget appropriations for the prior fiscal year in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill and makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.
This Act implements a recommendation from the December 31, 2023, Report of the Retiree Healthcare Benefits Advisory Subcommittee. Under this Act, the amount of the premium for a health-care insurance plan that this State will pay on behalf of eligible pensioners who were first employed as a regular officer or employee on or after January 1, 2025, and who are not subject to mandatory retirement, is changed as follows: 1. For eligible pensioners employed by the State for at least 15 years but less than 20 years at the time of retirement, 50% of the of the premium. 2. For eligible pensioners employed by the State for at least 20 years but less than 25 years at the time of retirement, 75% of the of the premium. 3. For eligible pensioners employed by the State for 25 or more years at the time of retirement, 100% of the of the premium. All other revisions to current law under this Act are technical changes to improve clarity and conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual. These technical changes include the addition of new defined terms and the reorganization of existing law. In § 5201 of Title 29, this Act makes the following technical changes: 1. Revises the definitions of “eligible pensioner”, “plan”, and “regular officer or employee” to remove inconsistent language and align with each other and current law. 2. To avoid repeating phrases in § 5202 of Title 29, clarifies that only for purposes of the amount of the premium paid by the State for health-care insurance plans, the term “eligible pensioner” includes the eligible pensioner’s eligible spouse and dependents and defines the following terms: • “First employed” means the date when the eligible pensioner began work as a regular officer or employee. • “Mandatory retirement” means mandatory retirement for members of the State Police under § 8361 of Title 11. • “Maximum state share" means the amount of the premium that the State pays for a plan before the proration ratio is applied. • “Premium” means the total premium or subscription charge for a health-care insurance plan provided under Chapter 52 of Title 29. In § 5202 of Title 29, this Act makes technical changes to clarify current law regarding the amount of the premium for a health-care insurance plan that this State will pay on behalf of a regular officer or employee or an eligible pensioner by doing the following: 1. Creates the following terms: • “Proration ratio”, which means the percentage applied to the maximum state share. For eligible pensioners, the “proration ratio” is based on when the eligible pensioner was first employed and the number of years the eligible pensioner had been employed as a regular officer or employee at the time of retirement. • “Prorated state share”, which means the dollar amount that the State pays for a plan on behalf of a regular officer or employee or an eligible pensioner. The “prorated state share” is the product of multiplying the proration ratio with the maximum state share. 2. Revises subsection (a) to use the new terms defined under this Act. 3. Transfers the current provisions in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) that provide the maximum state share for eligible pensioners to subsection (a), so they are with the maximum state share for regular officers and employees. 4. Revises subsection (b) so that the proration ratio and how it is used to determine the prorated state share is explained in paragraph (b)(1) and the proration ratios are provided in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3). • Paragraph (b)(2) lists all groups for whom the proration ratio is 100% because there are no deductions to the maximum state share. • Paragraph (b)(3) provides the proration ratios for eligible pensioners based on the date the eligible pensioner was first employed and years of employment as a regular officer or employee. These ratios clarify that for eligible pensioners who worked for less than the minimum number of years for the 50% proration ratio, the State does not pay anything towards the maximum state share.
This Act acknowledges the importance of diversity and inclusivity in education by requiring the Department of Education to update content standards and regulations using a non-exhaustive list of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups.
This Act requires crisis pregnancy centers in this state to provide notice if the center is not licensed by this state as a medical facility and does not have a licensed medical provider who provides or directly supervises, in person, the provision of services. A violation of this Act is an unlawful practice under § 2513 of Title 6 and a violation of Subchapter II, Chapter 25 of Title 6.
This Act eliminates the death penalty in Delaware. As such, the penalty for a person who is convicted of first-degree murder for an offense that was committed after the person’s 18th birthday is imprisonment for the remainder of the person’s natural life without benefit of probation or parole or any other reduction.
Like Senate Bill No. 301, this Act, Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 301 requires public universities in this state to provide access to medication for the termination of pregnancy and emergency contraception. The medication and contraception must be provided on-site, but consultation to provide them may be performed by a provider at the student health center or by a provider who is associated with a university-contracted external agency. This Act takes effect on July 1, 2025. Senate Substitute No. 1 for Senate Bill No. 301 differs from SB 301 as follows: - Defines the term "student." - Provides an exception for a university that does not have a student health center, including requirements that the university provide information and referral services to students and ensure that the university's health services website provides specified information relating to reproductive services. - Adds a requirement that universities maintain confidentiality of information a student provides relating to a request for a referral. - Removes references to private institutions of postsecondary education.
The Delaware Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment “DMOST” was enacted in 2016 under HB 64 (148th). The DMOST form allows Delawareans to plan ahead for health-care decisions, express their wishes in writing, and both enable and obligate health care professionals to act in accordance with a patient’s expressed preferences. A DMOST form is different than an Advance Health-Care Directive because a DMOST form contains portable medical orders that respect the patient’s goals for care in regard to the use of CPR and other medical interventions. Currently, DMOST is being underutilized, despite efforts by advocates and the creation of a statewide, electronic registry for DMOST forms hosted by the Delaware Health Information Network (DHIN). This Act will improve the utilization of DMOST forms by health-care practitioners, health-care providers, emergency-care providers, and patients and their families by creating a DMOST Program at the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). This Act expands upon DHSS’ current responsibilities under DMOST by doing all of the following: 1. Providing ongoing education and training for health-care practitioners, health-care providers, emergency-care providers, and patients and their families. 2. Maintaining a website for information and education about DMOST. 3. Working with the DHIN to maintain the electronic registry. 4. Coordinating with the National POLST Collaborative regarding current best practices and research. (POLST, which stands for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, was the name given to the first tool developed for honoring patients' wishes for end of life treatment in 1991.) 5. Creating a DMOST Steering Committee, consisting of a broad group of stakeholders, to evaluate and improve the DMOST Program and the use of DMOST forms. The DMOST Steering Committee must produce an annual report containing data about the use of DMOST forms, trainings, public education and outreach, and current challenges and recommendations to improve the DMOST Program. This Act also makes technical corrections to conform existing law to the standards of the Delaware Legislative Drafting Manual.
This Act clarifies the Attorney General’s existing authority to enforce the State’s consumer protection laws, specifically the Attorney General’s ability to pursue non-penalty civil remedies, such as damages and restitution, without having to show that a person’s violation of a law or regulation enforced by the Department of Justice’s Division of Consumer Protection was wilful. This Act does not change the requirement that the Attorney General show that such a violation was wilful in order to obtain civil penalties from a court or hearing officer. Every other state that has a similar state of mind requirement in their consumer fraud law does not impose that state of mind requirement for non-penalty civil remedies. By harmonizing the language in the Consumer Fraud Act (Subchapter II, Chapter 25, Title 6 of the Code) and the Division of Consumer Protection’s enabling statute (Subchapter II, Chapter 25, Title 29 of the Code), this Act clarifies that Delaware is line with the other states. This Act also strikes outdated language in the Consumer Fraud Act requiring cases to be filed in specific counties, as the Superior Court and the Court of Chancery have both eliminated their historical county filing requirement. Additionally, this Act fixes inconsistencies with the Summary Cease and Desist Order process, by clarifying that an alleged violator must request a hearing in order to trigger the Division of Consumer Protection’s obligation to hold a hearing. This Act further clarifies the Summary Cease and Desist Order process, such as by making explicit the alleged violator’s right to postpone a hearing and final order, changing the various 10 day requirements to 15 business days, and removing the requirement for a complaint to accompany the original summary cease and desist order.