Injunction Security: Industrial Operation
Sponsored by Rep. Eric Feige
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Chenault, Rep. Johnson, Rep. Thomas, Rep. Wilson, Sen. Fairclough, Rep. Keller, Rep. Thompson, Rep. Costello, Rep. Millett, Rep. Hawker, Rep. Lynn, Rep. Olson, Rep. Saddler, Rep. Dick, Rep. Wilson, Sen. Giessel, Sen. Meyer
“An Act requiring the amount of the security given by a party seeking an injunction or order vacating or staying the operation of a permit affecting an industrial operation to include an amount for the payment of wages and benefits for employees and payments to contractors and subcontractors that may be lost if the industrial operation is wrongfully enjoined.”
Posted: March 27, 2012 : v27-LS0395-D
Under current law the cost to bring a public litigant lawsuit against a legally permitted project is in effect zero. There is very little risk in bringing a suit. All the risk is borne by the defendants. These actions do shutdown projects at significant costs to working Alaskans, businesses and the state treasury. CSHB 168(JUD) seeks to remedy the situation by leveling the playing field.
# # #