In general, the fact of a transaction is generally public, as the parties will file either a notice or a request for dismissal reflecting the fact of the scheme. The terms of the count are generally confidential, unless a transaction agreement is filed in court. If a transaction is a public body, the transaction agreement can be entered into directly by the agency under the Open Access Act, 1 M.R.S.A. Transaction agreements with public bodies are public records under Maine law. Guy Gannett Publ`g Co. v. Univ. of Maine, 555 A.2d 470, 471-73 (Me. 1989). Jackson v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth., 352. Despite the clumsiness of the legal construction, this is the only reasonable conclusion.
It seems difficult to imagine that Parliament intended to exclude transaction documents from appeals against the government by negative comparisons. For the purposes of the statute, the directory information is „one or more of the following: name, address, telephone number, date and place of birth, main discipline of studies, participation in officially recognized activities and sport, weight and amount of sports team members, attendance dates, diplomas and awards obtained, and the most recent public or private school that the student attended.” Code Ed 49061 (c). Proponents of confidential comparisons argue that they prevent copycat actions, ensure fair negotiations in future cases, protect the reputation of parties who pay a disputed debt, and give privacy to beneficiaries of a wide comparison. Opponents of these agreements argue that they prevent a real understanding of the value of business, that they have potential tax consequences, that they reduce the liability of a criminal and that they hinder future litigation by limiting access to information and witnesses. Often, a confidentiality clause in a transaction agreement results in higher billing. As noted above, both the West Virginia Constitution and the statutes provide for an alleged right of public access to court records. See „Access to Civil Registers/In General” above. This rule applies to billing data. See State ex rel. Garden State Newspapers, Inc. v. Hoke, 205 W.Va.
611, 520 S.E.2d 186, 191 (1999). The United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia also recognized that First Amendment and Common Law transaction agreements would likely be open. Harper v. Elk Run Coal Co., No. 11-cv-305, 2012 WL 1999429 (S.D. W.Va. June 4, 2012). GS 132-1.3 (a). The settlement law says nothing about the resolution of disputes that have been filed by government agencies, not against them.
It could be argued that this omission implies that these colonies are not public records. However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals rejected this argument in Jackson v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hospital Authority, 238 N.C, approximately 351 (2014). An individual requested a copy of a settlement of a complaint filed by a hospital authority. The hospital authority argued that the transaction documents were not public because they were not under GS 132-1.3. The Tribunal found that the comparisons were public records, because they corresponded to the general definition of public records, and that no legal exceptions issued them from public access under the law. The court held that, in a civil action resulting from an alleged breach of a settlement agreement, the applicant`s speculation and presumptions as to the harm he will suffer as a result of the disclosure were not sufficient to justify the impermeability of the agreement.