H. R. 775

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To establish certain procedures for civil actions brought for damages relating to

the failure of any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the transition

from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF SECTIONS.

(a) SHORT TITLE.—This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Y2K Act’’.

(b) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for this Act

is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of sections.

Sec. 2. Findings and purposes.

Sec. 3. Definitions.

Sec. 4. Application of Act.

Sec. 5. Punitive damages limitations.

Sec. 6. Proportionate liability.

Sec. 7. Prelitigation notice.

Sec. 8. Pleading requirements.

Sec. 9. Duty to mitigate.

Sec. 10. Application of existing impossibility or commercial impracticability

doctrines.

Sec. 11. Damages limitation by contract.

Sec. 12. Damages in tort claims.

Sec. 13. State of mind; bystander liability; control.

Sec. 14. Appointment of special masters or magistrate judges for Y2K actions.

Sec. 15. Y2K actions as class actions.

Sec. 16. Applicability of State law.

Sec. 17. Admissible evidence ultimate issue in State courts.

Sec. 18. Suspension of penalties for certain year 2000 failures by small business

concerns.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds the following:

(1)(A) Many information technology systems, devices, and

programs are not capable of recognizing certain dates in 1999

and after December 31, 1999, and will read dates in the year

2000 and thereafter as if those dates represent the year 1900

or thereafter or will fail to process dates after December 31,

1999.

(B) If not corrected, the problem described in subparagraph

(A) and resulting failures could incapacitate systems that are

essential to the functioning of markets, commerce, consumer

products, utilities, Government, and safety and defense systems, in the United States and throughout the world.

(2) It is in the national interest that producers and users

of technology products concentrate their attention and resources

in the time remaining before January 1, 2000, on assessing,

fixing, testing, and developing contingency plans to address
H. R. 775—2

any and all outstanding year 2000 computer date-change problems, so as to minimize possible disruptions associated with

computer failures.

(3)(A) Because year 2000 computer date-change problems

may affect virtually all businesses and other users of technology

products to some degree, there is a substantial likelihood that

actual or potential year 2000 failures will prompt a significant

volume of litigation, much of it insubstantial.

(B) The litigation described in subparagraph (A) would

have a range of undesirable effects, including the following:

(i) It would threaten to waste technical and financial

resources that are better devoted to curing year 2000 computer date-change problems and ensuring that systems

remain or become operational.

(ii) It could threaten the network of valued and trusted

business and customer relationships that are important

to the effective functioning of the national economy.

(iii) It would strain the Nation’s legal system, causing

particular problems for the small businesses and individuals who already find that system inaccessible because

of its complexity and expense.

(iv) The delays, expense, uncertainties, loss of control,

adverse publicity, and animosities that frequently accompany litigation of business disputes could exacerbate the

difficulties associated with the date change and work

against the successful resolution of those difficulties.

(4) It is appropriate for the Congress to enact legislation

to assure that the year 2000 problems described in this section

do not unnecessarily disrupt interstate commerce or create

unnecessary caseloads in Federal courts and to provide initiatives to help businesses prepare and be in a position to withstand the potentially devastating economic impact of such problems.

(5) Resorting to the legal system for resolution of year

2000 problems described in this section is not feasible for many

businesses and individuals who already find the legal system

inaccessible, particularly small businesses and individuals who

already find the legal system inaccessible, because of its complexity and expense.

(6) Concern about the potential for liability—in particular,

concern about the substantial litigation expense associated with

defending against even the most insubstantial lawsuits—is

prompting many persons and businesses with technical expertise to avoid projects aimed at curing year 2000 computer

date-change problems.

(7) A proliferation of frivolous lawsuits relating to year

2000 computer date-change problems by opportunistic parties

may further limit access to courts by straining the resources

of the legal system and depriving deserving parties of their

legitimate rights to relief.

(8) Congress encourages businesses to approach their disputes relating to year 2000 computer date-change problems

responsibly, and to avoid unnecessary, time-consuming, and

costly litigation about Y2K failures, particularly those that

are not material. Congress supports good faith negotiations

between parties when there is such a dispute, and, if necessary,
H. R. 775—3

urges the parties to enter into voluntary, nonbinding mediation

rather than litigation.

(b) PURPOSES.—Based upon the power of the Congress under

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United

States, the purposes of this Act are—

(1) to establish uniform legal standards that give all

businesses and users of technology products reasonable incentives to solve year 2000 computer date-change problems before

they develop;

(2) to encourage continued remediation and testing efforts

to solve such problems by providers, suppliers, customers, and

other contracting partners;

(3) to encourage private and public parties alike to resolve

disputes relating to year 2000 computer date-change problems

by alternative dispute mechanisms in order to avoid costly

and time-consuming litigation, to initiate those mechanisms

as early as possible, and to encourage the prompt identification

and correction of such problems; and

(4) to lessen the burdens on interstate commerce by discouraging insubstantial lawsuits while preserving the ability of

individuals and businesses that have suffered real injury to

obtain complete relief.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) Y2K ACTION.—The term ‘‘Y2K action’’—

(A) means a civil action commenced in any Federal

or State court, or an agency board of contract appeal proceeding, in which the plaintiff ’s alleged harm or injury

arises from or is related to an actual or potential Y2K

failure, or a claim or defense arises from or is related

to an actual or potential Y2K failure;

(B) includes a civil action commenced in any Federal

or State court by a government entity when acting in

a commercial or contracting capacity; but

(C) does not include an action brought by a government

entity acting in a regulatory, supervisory, or enforcement

capacity.

(2) Y2K FAILURE.—The term ‘‘Y2K failure’’ means failure

by any device or system (including any computer system and

any microchip or integrated circuit embedded in another device

or product), or any software, firmware, or other set or collection

of processing instructions to process, to calculate, to compare,

to sequence, to display, to store, to transmit, or to receive

year-2000 date-related data, including failures—

(A) to deal with or account for transitions or comparisons from, into, and between the years 1999 and 2000

accurately;

(B) to recognize or accurately to process any specific

date in 1999, 2000, or 2001; or

(C) accurately to account for the year 2000’s status

as a leap year, including recognition and processing of

the correct date on February 29, 2000.

(3) GOVERNMENT ENTITY.—The term ‘‘government entity’’

means an agency, instrumentality, or other entity of Federal,

State, or local government (including multijurisdictional agencies, instrumentalities, and entities).
H. R. 775—4

(4) MATERIAL DEFECT.—The term ‘‘material defect’’ means

a defect in any item, whether tangible or intangible, or in

the provision of a service, that substantially prevents the item

or service from operating or functioning as designed or

according to its specifications. The term ‘‘material defect’’ does

not include a defect that—

(A) has an insignificant or de minimis effect on the

operation or functioning of an item or computer program;

(B) affects only a component of an item or program

that, as a whole, substantially operates or functions as

designed; or

(C) has an insignificant or de minimis effect on the

efficacy of the service provided.

(5) PERSONAL INJURY.—The term ‘‘personal injury’’ means

physical injury to a natural person, including—

(A) death as a result of a physical injury; and

(B) mental suffering, emotional distress, or similar

injuries suffered by that person in connection with a physical injury.

(6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the

United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the United States

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and any other territory

or possession of the United States, and any political subdivision

thereof.

(7) CONTRACT.—The term ‘‘contract’’ means a contract,

tariff, license, or warranty.

(8) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.—The term ‘‘alternative dispute resolution’’ means any process or proceeding,

other than adjudication by a court or in an administrative

proceeding, to assist in the resolution of issues in controversy,

through processes such as early neutral evaluation, mediation,

minitrial, and arbitration.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF ACT.

(a) GENERAL RULE.—This Act applies to any Y2K action brought

after January 1, 1999, for a Y2K failure occurring before January

1, 2003, or for a potential Y2K failure that could occur or has

allegedly caused harm or injury before January 1, 2003, including

any appeal, remand, stay, or other judicial, administrative, or alternative dispute resolution proceeding in such an action.

(b) NO NEW CAUSE OF ACTION CREATED.—Nothing in this Act

creates a new cause of action, and, except as otherwise explicitly

provided in this Act, nothing in this Act expands any liability

otherwise imposed or limits any defense otherwise available under

Federal or State law.

(c) CLAIMS FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH

EXCLUDED.—This Act does not apply to a claim for personal injury

or for wrongful death.

(d) WARRANTY AND CONTRACT PRESERVATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), in any Y2K

action any written contractual term, including a limitation

or an exclusion of liability, or a disclaimer of warranty, shall

be strictly enforced unless the enforcement of that term would

manifestly and directly contravene applicable State law

embodied in any statute in effect on January 1, 1999, specifically addressing that term.
H. R. 775—5

(2) INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT.—In any Y2K action in

which a contract to which paragraph (1) applies is silent as

to a particular issue, the interpretation of the contract as

to that issue shall be determined by applicable law in effect

at the time the contract was executed.

(3) UNCONSCIONABILITY.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall

prevent enforcement of State law doctrines of unconscionability,

including adhesion, recognized as of January 1, 1999, in controlling judicial precedent by the courts of the State whose law

applies to the Y2K action.

(e) PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW.—This Act supersedes State

law to the extent that it establishes a rule of law applicable to

a Y2K action that is inconsistent with State law, but nothing

in this Act implicates, alters, or diminishes the ability of a State

to defend itself against any claim on the basis of sovereign immunity.

(f ) APPLICATION WITH YEAR 2000 INFORMATION AND READINESS

DISCLOSURE ACT.—Nothing in this Act supersedes any provision

of the Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act.

(g) APPLICATION TO ACTIONS BROUGHT BY A GOVERNMENT

ENTITY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent provided in this subsection,

this Act shall apply to an action brought by a government

entity described in section 3(1)(C).

(2) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) DEFENDANT.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘defendant’’ includes

a State or local government.

(ii) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means each of the

several States of the United States, the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

(iii) LOCAL GOVERNMENT.—The term ‘‘local government’’ means—

(I) any county, city, town, township, parish,

village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a State; and

(II) any combination of political subdivisions

described in subclause (I) recognized by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

(B) Y2K UPSET.—The term ‘‘Y2K upset’’—

(i) means an exceptional temporary noncompliance

with applicable federally enforceable measurement,

monitoring, or reporting requirements directly related

to a Y2K failure that are beyond the reasonable control

of the defendant charged with compliance; and

(ii) does not include—

(I) noncompliance with applicable federally

enforceable measurement, monitoring, or reporting

requirements that constitutes or would create an

imminent threat to public health, safety, or the

environment;

(II) noncompliance with applicable federally

enforceable measurement, monitoring, or reporting

requirements that provide for the safety and

soundness of the banking or monetary system, or
H. R. 775—6

for the integrity of the national securities markets,

including the protection of depositors and investors;

(III) noncompliance with applicable federally

enforceable measurement, monitoring, or reporting

requirements to the extent caused by operational

error or negligence;

(IV) lack of reasonable preventative maintenance;

(V) lack of preparedness for a Y2K failure;

or

(VI) noncompliance with the underlying federally enforceable requirements to which the

applicable federally enforceable measurement,

monitoring, or reporting requirement relates.

(3) CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR A DEMONSTRATION OF A

Y2K UPSET.—A defendant who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of Y2K upset shall demonstrate, through properly

signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that—

(A) the defendant previously made a reasonable good

faith effort to anticipate, prevent, and effectively remediate

a potential Y2K failure;

(B) a Y2K upset occurred as a result of a Y2K failure

or other emergency directly related to a Y2K failure;

(C) noncompliance with the applicable federally

enforceable measurement, monitoring, or reporting requirement was unavoidable in the face of an emergency directly

related to a Y2K failure and was necessary to prevent

the disruption of critical functions or services that could

result in harm to life or property;

(D) upon identification of noncompliance the defendant

invoking the defense began immediate actions to correct

any violation of federally enforceable measurement, monitoring, or reporting requirements; and

(E) the defendant submitted notice to the appropriate

Federal regulatory authority of a Y2K upset within 72

hours from the time that the defendant became aware

of the upset.

(4) GRANT OF A Y2K UPSET DEFENSE.—Subject to the other

provisions of this subsection, the Y2K upset defense shall be

a complete defense to the imposition of a penalty in any action

brought as a result of noncompliance with federally enforceable

measurement, monitoring, or reporting requirements for any

defendant who establishes by a preponderance of the evidence

that the conditions set forth in paragraph (3) are met.

(5) LENGTH OF Y2K UPSET.—The maximum allowable length

of the Y2K upset shall be not more than 15 days beginning

on the date of the upset unless specific relief by the appropriate

regulatory authority is granted.

(6) FRAUDULENT INVOCATION OF Y2K UPSET DEFENSE.—

Fraudulent use of the Y2K upset defense provided for in this

subsection shall be subject to the sanctions provided in section

1001 of title 18, United States Code.

(7) EXPIRATION OF DEFENSE.—The Y2K upset defense may

not be asserted for a Y2K upset occurring after June 30, 2000.
H. R. 775—7

(8) PRESERVATION OF AUTHORITY.—Nothing in this subsection shall affect the authority of a government entity to

seek injunctive relief or require a defendant to correct a violation of a federally enforceable measurement, monitoring, or

reporting requirement.

(h) CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM Y2K FAILURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—No person who transacts business on

matters directly or indirectly affecting residential mortgages

shall cause or permit a foreclosure on any such mortgage

against a consumer as a result of an actual Y2K failure that

results in an inability to accurately or timely process any mortgage payment transaction.

(2) NOTICE.—A consumer who is affected by an inability

described in paragraph (1) shall notify the servicer for the

mortgage, in writing and within 7 business days from the

time that the consumer becomes aware of the Y2K failure

and the consumer’s inability to accurately or timely fulfill his

or her obligation to pay, of such failure and inability and

shall provide to the servicer any available documentation with

respect to the failure.

(3) ACTIONS MAY RESUME AFTER GRACE PERIOD.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an action prohibited under paragraph

(1) may be resumed, if the consumer’s mortgage obligation

has not been paid and the servicer of the mortgage has not

expressly and in writing granted the consumer an extension

of time during which to pay the consumer’s mortgage obligation,

but only after the later of—

(A) four weeks after January 1, 2000; or

(B) four weeks after notification is made as required

under paragraph (2), except that any notification made

on or after March 15, 2000, shall not be effective for purposes of this subsection.

(4) APPLICABILITY.—This subsection does not apply to transactions upon which a default has occurred before December

15, 1999, or with respect to which an imminent default was

foreseeable before December 15, 1999.

(5) ENFORCEMENT OF OBLIGATIONS MERELY TOLLED.—This

subsection delays but does not prevent the enforcement of financial obligations, and does not otherwise affect or extinguish

the obligation to pay.

(6) DEFINITION.—In this subsection—

(A) The term ‘‘consumer’’ means a natural person.

(B) The term ‘‘residential mortgage’’ has the meaning

given the term ‘‘federally related mortgage loan’’ under

section 3 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2602).

(C) The term ‘‘servicer’’ means the person, including

any successor, responsible for receiving any scheduled periodic payments from a consumer pursuant to the terms

of a residential mortgage, including amounts for any escrow

account, and for making the payments of principal and

interest and such other payments with respect to the

amounts received from the borrower as may be required

pursuant to the terms of the mortgage. Such term includes

the person, including any successor, who makes or holds

a loan if such person also services the loan.
H. R. 775—8

(i) APPLICABILITY TO SECURITIES LITIGATION.—In any Y2K

action in which the underlying claim arises under the securities

laws (as defined in section 3(a) of the Securities Exchange Act

of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)), the provisions of this Act, other than

section 13(b) of this Act, shall not apply.

SEC. 5. PUNITIVE DAMAGES LIMITATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—In any Y2K action in which punitive damages

are permitted by applicable law, the defendant shall not be liable

for punitive damages unless the plaintiff proves by clear and convincing evidence that the applicable standard for awarding damages

has been met.

(b) CAPS ON PUNITIVE DAMAGES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the evidentiary standard established by subsection (a), punitive damages permitted under

applicable law against a defendant described in paragraph (2)

in a Y2K action may not exceed the lesser of—

(A) three times the amount awarded for compensatory

damages; or (B) $250,000.

(2) DEFENDANT DESCRIBED.—A defendant described in this

paragraph is a defendant—

(A) who—

(i) is sued in his or her capacity as an individual;

and

(ii) whose net worth does not exceed $500,000;

or

(B) that is an unincorporated business, a partnership,

corporation, association, or organization, with fewer than

50 full-time employees.

(3) NO CAP IF INJURY SPECIFICALLY INTENDED.—Paragraph

(1) does not apply if the plaintiff establishes by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant acted with specific

intent to injure the plaintiff.

(c) GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.—Punitive damages in a Y2K action

may not be awarded against a government entity.

SEC. 6. PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except in a Y2K action that is a contract

action, and except as provided in subsections (b) through (g), a

person against whom a final judgment is entered in a Y2K action

shall be liable solely for the portion of the judgment that corresponds to the relative and proportionate responsibility of that

person. In determining the percentage of responsibility of any

defendant, the trier of fact shall determine that percentage as

a percentage of the total fault of all persons, including the plaintiff,

who caused or contributed to the total loss incurred by the plaintiff.

(b) PROPORTIONATE LIABILITY.— (1) DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY.—In any Y2K action

that is not a contract action, the court shall instruct the jury

to answer special interrogatories, or, if there is no jury, the

court shall make findings with respect to each defendant,

including defendants who have entered into settlements with

the plaintiff or plaintiffs, concerning—

(A) the percentage of responsibility, if any, of each

defendant, measured as a percentage of the total fault

of all persons who caused or contributed to the loss incurred

by the plaintiff; and
H. R. 775—9

(B) if alleged by the plaintiff, whether the defendant

(other than a defendant who has entered into a settlement

agreement with the plaintiff)—

(i) acted with specific intent to injure the

plaintiff; or

(ii) knowingly committed fraud.

(2) CONTENTS OF SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES OR FINDINGS.—

The responses to interrogatories or findings under paragraph

(1) shall specify the total amount of damages that the plaintiff

is entitled to recover and the percentage of responsibility of

each defendant found to have caused or contributed to the

loss incurred by the plaintiff.

(3) FACTORS FOR CONSIDERATION.—In determining the

percentage of responsibility under this subsection, the trier

of fact shall consider—

(A) the nature of the conduct of each person found

to have caused or contributed to the loss incurred by the

plaintiff; and

(B) the nature and extent of the causal relationship

between the conduct of each such person and the damages

incurred by the plaintiff.

(c) JOINT LIABILITY FOR SPECIFIC INTENT OR FRAUD.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), the

liability of a defendant in a Y2K action that is not a contract

action is joint and several if the trier of fact specifically determines that the defendant—

(A) acted with specific intent to injure the

plaintiff; or

(B) knowingly committed fraud.

(2) FRAUD; RECKLESSNESS.— (A) KNOWING COMMISSION OF FRAUD DESCRIBED.—For

purposes of subsection (b)(1)(B)(ii) and paragraph (1)(B)

of this subsection, a defendant knowingly committed fraud

if the defendant—

(i) made an untrue statement of a material fact,

with actual knowledge that the statement was false;

(ii) omitted a fact necessary to make the statement

not be misleading, with actual knowledge that, as a

result of the omission, the statement was false; and

(iii) knew that the plaintiff was reasonably likely

to rely on the false statement.

(B) RECKLESSNESS.—For purposes of subsection

(b)(1)(B) and paragraph (1) of this subsection, reckless conduct by the defendant does not constitute either a specific

intent to injure, or the knowing commission of fraud, by

the defendant.

(3) RIGHT TO CONTRIBUTION NOT AFFECTED.—Nothing in

this section affects the right, under any other law, of a defendant to contribution with respect to another defendant found

under subsection (b)(1)(B), or determined under paragraph

(1)(B) of this subsection, to have acted with specific intent

to injure the plaintiff or to have knowingly committed fraud.

(d) SPECIAL RULES.—

(1) UNCOLLECTIBLE SHARE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsection (a), if,

upon motion made not later than 6 months after a final

judgment is entered in any Y2K action that is not a contract
H. R. 775—10

action, the court determines that all or part of the share

of the judgment against a defendant for compensatory damages is not collectible against that defendant, then each

other defendant in the action is liable for the uncollectible

share as follows:

(i) PERCENTAGE OF NET WORTH.—The other defendants are jointly and severally liable for the uncollectible

share if the plaintiff establishes that—

(I) the plaintiff is an individual whose recoverable damages under the final judgment are equal

to more than 10 percent of the net worth of the

plaintiff; and

(II) the net worth of the plaintiff is less than

$200,000.

(ii) OTHER PLAINTIFFS.—For a plaintiff not

described in clause (i), each of the other defendants

is liable for the uncollectible share in proportion to

the percentage of responsibility of that defendant.

(iii) For a plaintiff not described in clause (i), in

addition to the share identified in clause (ii), the

defendant is liable for an additional portion of the

uncollectible share in an amount equal to 50 percent

of the amount determined under clause (ii) if the plaintiff demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for

the likelihood that its acts would cause injury of the

sort suffered by the plaintiff.

(B) OVERALL LIMIT.—The total payments required

under subparagraph (A) from all defendants may not exceed

the amount of the uncollectible share.

(C) SUBJECT TO CONTRIBUTION.—A defendant against

whom judgment is not collectible is subject to contribution

and to any continuing liability to the plaintiff on the judgment.

(D) SUITS BY CONSUMERS.—

(i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the other

defendants are jointly and severally liable for the

uncollectible share if—

(I) the plaintiff is a consumer whose suit

alleges or arises out of a defect in a consumer

product; and

(II) the plaintiff is suing as an individual and

not as part of a class action.

(ii) In this subparagraph:

(I) The term ‘‘class action’’ means—

(aa) a single lawsuit in which: (1) damages

are sought on behalf of more than 10 persons

or prospective class members; or (2) one or

more named parties seek to recover damages

on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other unnamed parties similarly

situated; or

(bb) any group of lawsuits filed in or

pending in the same court in which: (1) damages are sought on behalf of more than 10

persons; and (2) the lawsuits are joined,
H. R. 775—11

consolidated, or otherwise proceed as a single

action for any purpose.

(II) The term ‘‘consumer’’ means an individual

who acquires a consumer product for purposes

other than resale.

(III) The term ‘‘consumer product’’ means any

personal property or service which is normally

used for personal, family, or household purposes.

(2) SPECIAL RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION.—To the extent that

a defendant is required to make an additional payment under

paragraph (1), that defendant may recover contribution—

(A) from the defendant originally liable to make the

payment;

(B) from any other defendant that is jointly and severally liable;

(C) from any other defendant held proportionately

liable who is liable to make the same payment and has

paid less than that other defendant’s proportionate share

of that payment; or

(D) from any other person responsible for the conduct

giving rise to the payment that would have been liable

to make the same payment.

(3) NONDISCLOSURE TO JURY.—The standard for allocation

of damages under subsection (a) and subsection (b)(1), and

the procedure for reallocation of uncollectible shares under

paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall not be disclosed to members of the jury.

(e) SETTLEMENT DISCHARGE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—A defendant who settles a Y2K action

that is not a contract action at any time before final verdict

or judgment shall be discharged from all claims for contribution

brought by other persons. Upon entry of the settlement by

the court, the court shall enter an order constituting the final

discharge of all obligations to the plaintiff of the settling defendant arising out of the action. The order shall bar all future

claims for contribution arising out of the action—

(A) by any person against the settling defendant; and

(B) by the settling defendant against any person other

than a person whose liability has been extinguished by

the settlement of the settling defendant.

(2) REDUCTION.—If a defendant enters into a settlement

with the plaintiff before the final verdict or judgment, the

verdict or judgment shall be reduced by the greater of—

(A) an amount that corresponds to the percentage of

responsibility of that defendant; or

(B) the amount paid to the plaintiff by that defendant.

(f ) GENERAL RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—A defendant who is jointly and severally

liable for damages in any Y2K action that is not a contract

action may recover contribution from any other person who,

if joined in the original action, would have been liable for

the same damages. A claim for contribution shall be determined

based on the percentage of responsibility of the claimant and

of each person against whom a claim for contribution is made.

(2) STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CONTRIBUTION.—An action

for contribution in connection with a Y2K action that is not

a contract action shall be brought not later than 6 months
H. R. 775—12

after the entry of a final, nonappealable judgment in the Y2K

action, except that an action for contribution brought by a

defendant who was required to make an additional payment

under subsection (d)(1) may be brought not later than 6 months

after the date on which such payment was made.

(g) MORE PROTECTIVE STATE LAW NOT PREEMPTED.—Nothing

in this section preempts or supersedes any provision of State law

that—

(1) limits the liability of a defendant in a Y2K action

to a lesser amount than the amount determined under this

section; or

(2) otherwise affords a greater degree of protection from

joint or several liability than is afforded by this section.

SEC. 7. PRELITIGATION NOTICE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Before commencing a Y2K action, except

an action that seeks only injunctive relief, a prospective plaintiff

in a Y2K action shall send a written notice by certified mail (with

either return receipt requested or other means of verification that

the notice was sent) to each prospective defendant in that action.

The notice shall provide specific and detailed information about—

(1) the manifestations of any material defect alleged to

have caused harm or loss;

(2) the harm or loss allegedly suffered by the prospective

plaintiff;

(3) how the prospective plaintiff would like the prospective

defendant to remedy the problem;

(4) the basis upon which the prospective plaintiff seeks

that remedy; and

(5) the name, title, address, and telephone number of any

individual who has authority to negotiate a resolution of the

dispute on behalf of the prospective plaintiff.

(b) PERSON TO WHOM NOTICE TO BE SENT.—The notice required

by subsection (a) shall be sent—

(1) to the registered agent of the prospective defendant

for service of legal process;

(2) if the prospective defendant does not have a registered

agent, then to the chief executive officer if the prospective

defendant is a corporation, to the managing partner if the

prospective defendant is a partnership, to the proprietor if

the prospective defendant is a sole proprietorship, or to a similarly-situated person if the prospective defendant is any other

enterprise; or

(3) if the prospective defendant has designated a person

to receive prelitigation notices on a Year 2000 Internet Website

(as defined in section 3(7) of the Year 2000 Information and

Readiness Disclosure Act), to the designated person, if the

prospective plaintiff has reasonable access to the Internet.

(c) RESPONSE TO NOTICE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Within 30 days after receipt of the notice

specified in subsection (a), each prospective defendant shall

send by certified mail with return receipt requested to each

prospective plaintiff a written statement acknowledging receipt

of the notice, and describing the actions it has taken or will

take to address the problem identified by the prospective plaintiff.
H. R. 775—13

(2) WILLINGNESS TO ENGAGE IN ADR.—The written statement shall state whether the prospective defendant is willing

to engage in alternative dispute resolution.

(3) INADMISSIBILITY.—A written statement required by this

subsection is not admissible in evidence, under Rule 408 of

the Federal Rules of Evidence or any analogous rule of evidence

in any State, in any proceeding to prove liability for, or the

invalidity of, a claim or its amount, or otherwise as evidence

of conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations.

(4) PRESUMPTIVE TIME OF RECEIPT.—For purposes of paragraph (1), a notice under subsection (a) is presumed to be

received 7 days after it was sent.

(5) PRIORITY.—A prospective defendant receiving more than

one notice under this section may give priority to notices with

respect to a product or service that involves a health or safety

related Y2K failure.

(d) FAILURE TO RESPOND.—If a prospective defendant—

(1) fails to respond to a notice provided pursuant to

subsection (a) within the 30 days specified in subsection (c)(1);

or

(2) does not describe the action, if any, the prospective

defendant has taken, or will take, to address the problem

identified by the prospective plaintiff,

the prospective plaintiff may immediately commence a legal action

against that prospective defendant.

(e) REMEDIATION PERIOD.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—If the prospective defendant responds

and proposes remedial action it will take, or offers to engage

in alternative dispute resolution, then the prospective plaintiff

shall allow the prospective defendant an additional 60 days

from the end of the 30-day notice period to complete the proposed remedial action or alternative dispute resolution before

commencing a legal action against that prospective defendant.

(2) EXTENSION BY AGREEMENT.—The prospective plaintiff

and prospective defendant may change the length of the 60-

day remediation period by written agreement.

(3) MULTIPLE EXTENSIONS NOT ALLOWED.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), a defendant in a Y2K action is entitled

to no more than one 30-day period and one 60-day remediation

period under paragraph (1).

(4) STATUTES OF LIMITATION, ETC., TOLLED.—Any applicable

statute of limitations or doctrine of laches in a Y2K action

to which paragraph (1) applies shall be tolled during the notice

and remediation period under that paragraph.

(f ) FAILURE TO PROVIDE NOTICE.—If a defendant determines

that a plaintiff has filed a Y2K action without providing the notice

specified in subsection (a) or without awaiting the expiration of

the appropriate waiting period specified in subsection (c), the

defendant may treat the plaintiff ’s complaint as such a notice

by so informing the court and the plaintiff in its initial response

to the plaintiff. If any defendant elects to treat the complaint

as such a notice—

(1) the court shall stay all discovery and all other proceedings in the action for the appropriate period after filing

of the complaint; and

(2) the time for filing answers and all other pleadings

shall be tolled during the appropriate period.
H. R. 775—14

(g) EFFECT OF CONTRACTUAL OR STATUTORY WAITING

PERIODS.—In cases in which a contract, or a statute enacted before

January 1, 1999, requires notice of nonperformance and provides

for a period of delay prior to the initiation of suit for breach

or repudiation of contract, the period of delay provided by contract

or the statute is controlling over the waiting period specified in

subsections (c) and (d).

(h) STATE LAW CONTROLS ALTERNATIVE METHODS.—Nothing

in this section supersedes or otherwise preempts any State law

or rule of civil procedure with respect to the use of alternative

dispute resolution for Y2K actions.

(i) PROVISIONAL REMEDIES UNAFFECTED.—Nothing in this section interferes with the right of a litigant to provisional remedies

otherwise available under Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure or any State rule of civil procedure providing extraordinary or provisional remedies in any civil action in which the

underlying complaint seeks both injunctive and monetary relief.

( j) SPECIAL RULE FOR CLASS ACTIONS.—For the purpose of

applying this section to a Y2K action that is maintained as a

class action in Federal or State court, the requirements of the

preceding subsections of this section apply only to named plaintiffs

in the class action.

SEC. 8. PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.

(a) APPLICATION WITH RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.—This section applies exclusively to Y2K actions and, except to the extent

that this section requires additional information to be contained

in or attached to pleadings, nothing in this section is intended

to amend or otherwise supersede applicable rules of Federal or

State civil procedure.

(b) NATURE AND AMOUNT OF DAMAGES.—In all Y2K actions

in which damages are requested, there shall be filed with the

complaint a statement of specific information as to the nature

and amount of each element of damages and the factual basis

for the damages calculation.

(c) MATERIAL DEFECTS.—In any Y2K action in which the plaintiff alleges that there is a material defect in a product or service,

there shall be filed with the complaint a statement of specific

information regarding the manifestations of the material defects

and the facts supporting a conclusion that the defects are material.

(d) REQUIRED STATE OF MIND.—In any Y2K action in which

a claim is asserted on which the plaintiff may prevail only on

proof that the defendant acted with a particular state of mind,

there shall be filed with the complaint, with respect to each element

of that claim, a statement of the facts giving rise to a strong

inference that the defendant acted with the required state of mind.

SEC. 9. DUTY TO MITIGATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Damages awarded in any Y2K action shall

exclude compensation for damages the plaintiff could reasonably

have avoided in light of any disclosure or other information of

which the plaintiff was, or reasonably should have been, aware,

including information made available by the defendant to purchasers or users of the defendant’s product or services concerning

means of remedying or avoiding the Y2K failure involved in the

action.
H. R. 775—15

(b) PRESERVATION OF EXISTING LAW.—The duty imposed by

this section is in addition to any duty to mitigate imposed by

State law.

(c) EXCEPTION FOR INTENTIONAL FRAUD.—Subsection (a) does

not apply to damages suffered by reason of the plaintiff ’s justifiable

reliance upon an affirmative material misrepresentation by the

defendant, made by the defendant with actual knowledge of its

falsity, concerning the potential for Y2K failure of the device or

system used or sold by the defendant that experienced the Y2K

failure alleged to have caused the plaintiff ’s harm.

SEC. 10. APPLICATION OF EXISTING IMPOSSIBILITY OR COMMERCIAL

IMPRACTICABILITY DOCTRINES.

In any Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract, the

applicability of the doctrines of impossibility and commercial

impracticability shall be determined by the law in existence on

January 1, 1999. Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting

or impairing a party’s right to assert defenses based upon such

doctrines.

SEC. 11. DAMAGES LIMITATION BY CONTRACT.

In any Y2K action for breach or repudiation of contract, no

party may claim, or be awarded, any category of damages unless

such damages are allowed—

(1) by the express terms of the contract; or

(2) if the contract is silent on such damages, by operation

of State law at the time the contract was effective or by operation of Federal law.

SEC. 12. DAMAGES IN TORT CLAIMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—A party to a Y2K action making a tort claim,

other than a claim of intentional tort arising independent of a

contract, may not recover damages for economic loss unless—

(1) the recovery of such losses is provided for in a contract

to which the party seeking to recover such losses is a party;

or

(2) such losses result directly from damage to tangible

personal or real property caused by the Y2K failure involved

in the action (other than damage to property that is the subject

of the contract between the parties to the Y2K action or, in

the event there is no contract between the parties, other than

damage caused only to the property that experienced the Y2K

failure),

and such damages are permitted under applicable Federal or State

law.

(b) ECONOMIC LOSS.—For purposes of this section only, and

except as otherwise specifically provided in a valid and enforceable

written contract between the plaintiff and the defendant in a Y2K

action, the term ‘‘economic loss’’ means amounts awarded to compensate an injured party for any loss, and includes amounts

awarded for damages such as—

(1) lost profits or sales;

(2) business interruption;

(3) losses indirectly suffered as a result of the defendant’s

wrongful act or omission;

(4) losses that arise because of the claims of third parties;

(5) losses that must be pled as special damages; and
H. R. 775—16

(6) consequential damages (as defined in the Uniform

Commercial Code or analogous State commercial law).

(c) CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS.—A person liable for damages,

whether by settlement or judgment, in a civil action to which

this Act does not apply because of section 4(c) whose liability,

in whole or in part, is the result of a Y2K failure may, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, pursue any remedy otherwise available under Federal or State law against the person responsible for that Y2K failure to the extent of recovering the amount

of those damages.

SEC. 13. STATE OF MIND; BYSTANDER LIABILITY; CONTROL.

(a) DEFENDANT’S STATE OF MIND.—In a Y2K action other than

a claim for breach or repudiation of contract, and in which the

defendant’s actual or constructive awareness of an actual or potential Y2K failure is an element of the claim, the defendant is not

liable unless the plaintiff establishes that element of the claim

by the standard of evidence under applicable State law in effect

on the day before January 1, 1999.

(b) LIMITATION ON BYSTANDER LIABILITY FOR Y2K FAILURES.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to any Y2K action for money

damages in which—

(A) the defendant is not the manufacturer, seller, or

distributor of a product, or the provider of a service, that

suffers or causes the Y2K failure at issue;

(B) the plaintiff is not in substantial privity with the

defendant; and

(C) the defendant’s actual or constructive awareness

of an actual or potential Y2K failure is an element of

the claim under applicable law,

the defendant shall not be liable unless the plaintiff, in addition

to establishing all other requisite elements of the claim, proves,

by the standard of evidence under applicable State law in

effect on the day before January 1, 1999, that the defendant

actually knew, or recklessly disregarded a known and substantial risk, that such failure would occur.

(2) SUBSTANTIAL PRIVITY.—For purposes of paragraph

(1)(B), a plaintiff and a defendant are in substantial privity

when, in a Y2K action arising out of the performance of professional services, the plaintiff and the defendant either have

contractual relations with one another or the plaintiff is a

person who, prior to the defendant’s performance of such services, was specifically identified to and acknowledged by the

defendant as a person for whose special benefit the services

were being performed.

(3) CERTAIN CLAIMS EXCLUDED.—For purposes of paragraph

(1)(C), claims in which the defendant’s actual or constructive

awareness of an actual or potential Y2K failure is an element

of the claim under applicable law do not include claims for

negligence but do include claims such as fraud, constructive

fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation,

and interference with contract or economic advantage.

(c) CONTROL NOT DETERMINATIVE OF LIABILITY.—The fact that

a Y2K failure occurred in an entity, facility, system, product, or

component that was sold, leased, rented, or otherwise within the

control of the party against whom a claim is asserted in a Y2K

action shall not constitute the sole basis for recovery of damages
H. R. 775—17

in that action. A claim in a Y2K action for breach or repudiation

of contract for such a failure is governed by the terms of the

contract.

(d) PROTECTIONS OF THE YEAR 2000 INFORMATION AND READINESS DISCLOSURE ACT APPLY.—The protections for the exchanges

of information provided by section 4 of the Year 2000 Information

and Readiness Disclosure Act (Public Law 105–271) shall apply

to any Y2K action.

SEC. 14. APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL MASTERS OR MAGISTRATE

JUDGES FOR Y2K ACTIONS.

Any district court of the United States in which a Y2K action

is pending may appoint a special master or a magistrate judge

to hear the matter and to make findings of fact and conclusions

of law in accordance with Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

SEC. 15. Y2K ACTIONS AS CLASS ACTIONS.

(a) MATERIAL DEFECT REQUIREMENT.—A Y2K action involving

a claim that a product or service is defective may be maintained

as a class action in Federal or State court as to that claim only

if—

(1) it satisfies all other prerequisites established by

applicable Federal or State law, including applicable rules of

civil procedure; and

(2) the court finds that the defect in a product or service

as alleged would be a material defect for the majority of the

members of the class.

(b) NOTIFICATION.—In any Y2K action that is maintained as

a class action, the court, in addition to any other notice required

by applicable Federal or State law, shall direct notice of the action

to each member of the class, which shall include—

(1) a concise and clear description of the nature of the

action;

(2) the jurisdiction where the case is pending; and

(3) the fee arrangements with class counsel, including the

hourly fee being charged, or, if it is a contingency fee, the

percentage of the final award which will be paid, including

an estimate of the total amount that would be paid if the

requested damages were to be granted.

(c) FORUM FOR Y2K CLASS ACTIONS.— (1) JURISDICTION.—Except as provided in paragraph (2),

the district courts of the United States shall have original

jurisdiction of any Y2K action that is brought as a class action.

(2) EXCEPTIONS.—The district courts of the United States

shall not have original jurisdiction over a Y2K action brought

as a class action if—

(A)(i) a substantial majority of the members of the

proposed plaintiff class are citizens of a single State;

(ii) the primary defendants are citizens of that State;

and

(iii) the claims asserted will be governed primarily

by the laws of that State;

(B) the primary defendants are States, State officials,

or other governmental entities against whom the district

courts of the United States may be foreclosed from ordering

relief;
H. R. 775—18

(C) the plaintiff class does not seek an award of punitive damages, and the amount in controversy is less than

the sum of $10,000,000 (exclusive of interest and costs),

computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in

the action; or

(D) there are less than 100 members of the proposed

plaintiff class.

A party urging that any exception described in subparagraph

(A), (B), (C), or (D) applies to an action shall bear the full

burden of demonstrating the applicability of the exception.

(3) PROCEDURE IF REQUIREMENTS NOT MET.—

(A) DISMISSAL OR REMAND.—A United States district

court shall dismiss, or, if after removal, strike the class

allegations and remand, any Y2K action brought or

removed under this subsection as a class action if—

(i) the action is subject to the jurisdiction of the

court solely under this subsection; and

(ii) the court determines the action may not proceed as a class action based on a failure to satisfy

the conditions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

(B) AMENDMENT; REMOVAL.—Nothing in paragraph (A)

shall prohibit plaintiffs from filing an amended class action

in Federal or State court. A defendant shall have the

right to remove such an amended class action to a United

States district court under this subsection.

(C) PERIOD OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED.—Upon dismissal

or remand, the period of limitations for any claim that

was asserted in an action on behalf of any named or

unnamed member of any proposed class shall be deemed

tolled to the full extent provided under Federal law.

(D) DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE.—The dismissal of

a Y2K action under subparagraph (A) shall be without

prejudice.

(d) EFFECT ON RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.—Except as otherwise provided in this section, nothing in this section supersedes

any rule of Federal or State civil procedure applicable to class

actions.

SEC. 16. APPLICABILITY OF STATE LAW.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the applicability

of any State law that provides stricter limits on damages and

liabilities, affording greater protection to defendants in Y2K actions,

than are provided in this Act.

SEC. 17. ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE ULTIMATE ISSUE IN STATE COURTS.

Any party to a Y2K action in a State court in a State that

has not adopted a rule of evidence substantially similar to Rule

704 of the Federal Rules of Evidence may introduce in such action

evidence that would be admissible if Rule 704 applied in that

jurisdiction.

SEC. 18. SUSPENSION OF PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN YEAR 2000 FAILURES BY SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section—

(1) the term ‘‘agency’’ means any executive agency, as

defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, that
H. R. 775—19

has the authority to impose civil penalties on small business

concerns;

(2) the term ‘‘first-time violation’’ means a violation by

a small business concern of a federally enforceable rule or

regulation (other than a Federal rule or regulation that relates

to the safety and soundness of the banking or monetary system

or for the integrity of the National Securities markets, including

protection of depositors and investors) caused by a Y2K failure

if that Federal rule or regulation had not been violated by

that small business concern within the preceding 3 years; and

(3) the term ‘‘small business concern’’ has the same

meaning as a defendant described in section 5(b)(2)(B).

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF LIAISONS.—Not later than 30 days after

the date of the enactment of this Act, each agency shall—

(1) establish a point of contact within the agency to act

as a liaison between the agency and small business concerns

with respect to problems arising out of Y2K failures and compliance with Federal rules or regulations; and

(2) publish the name and phone number of the point of

contact for the agency in the Federal Register.

(c) GENERAL RULE.—Subject to subsections (d) and (e), no

agency shall impose any civil money penalty on a small business

concern for a first-time violation.

(d) STANDARDS FOR WAIVER.—An agency shall provide a waiver

of civil money penalties for a first-time violation, provided that

a small business concern demonstrates, and the agency determines,

that—

(1) the small business concern previously made a reasonable good faith effort to anticipate, prevent, and effectively

remediate a potential Y2K failure;

(2) a first-time violation occurred as a result of the Y2K

failure of the small business concern or other entity, which

significantly affected the small business concern’s ability to

comply with a Federal rule or regulation;

(3) the first-time violation was unavoidable in the face

of a Y2K failure or occurred as a result of efforts to prevent

the disruption of critical functions or services that could result

in harm to life or property;

(4) upon identification of a first-time violation, the small

business concern initiated reasonable and prompt measures

to correct the violation; and

(5) the small business concern submitted notice to the

appropriate agency of the first-time violation within a reasonable time not to exceed 5 business days from the time that

the small business concern became aware that the first-time

violation had occurred.

(e) EXCEPTIONS.—An agency may impose civil money penalties

authorized under Federal law on a small business concern for

a first-time violation if—

(1) the small business concern’s failure to comply with

Federal rules or regulations resulted in actual harm, or constitutes or creates an imminent threat to public health, safety,

or the environment; or
H. R. 775—20

(2) the small business concern fails to correct the violation

not later than 1 month after initial notification to the agency.

(f ) EXPIRATION.—This section shall not apply to first-time violations caused by a Y2K failure occurring after December 31, 2000.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.