Y2K: What price a Good Samaritan?

First the Americans did it, then the Australians and now Y2K experts in the UK are pushing for it too.

The Year 2000 Information Disclosure Bill, dubbed the 'Good Samaritan' Act by US Senators, protects companies from civil liability arising from Y2K disclosure. Crucially, it also prohibits the use of that information in anti-competitive practices. It means that Y2K statements cannot be entered as evidence of failure of Y2K goods and services.

And for many millennium bug experts, it will offer further protection against a raft of expected litigation after 1 January, and encourage a greater sense of openness as the world's corporates struggle to make their businesses compliant.

When the Australian government introduced the Bill to its House of Representatives in February, it claimed it would end the sense of fear, felt by many corporates, of legal reprisals following disclosure of their Year 2000 readiness.

Now the argument for a similar Act is gaining momentum in the UK, according to law firm, Tarlo Lyons. The worry is that if the UK has no similar protection, then frustrated companies prevented from suing in the US or Australia will seek legal redress over here.

If this happens, the UK - and indeed Europe - could become a centre for Y2K litigation, and with no legal cap on fiscal levels, lawsuits could swiftly get out of hand. The US is already considering caps on how much victims can collect, and limits on attorneys' fees.

However, the UK government says such a law is not needed, claiming the country is less litigious than the US and Australia, and that Pledge 2000 - a public contract launched by Action 2000 which encourages companies to disclose Y2K plans - will suffice.

Not so, says Tarlo Lyons barrister, Andrew Rigby. "This argument no longer holds water, because Australia has a similar culture as the UK and does not have a notoriety of being litigious," he claims.

"There is a belief that the UK is not as litigious, and we've taken the view that Pledge 2000 will encourage companies to disclose information without fear of reprisals. But a recent Institute of Judiciary study shows that, per capita, we are as litigious. It is just that the values are much lower. The point is, we need a level playing field," says Rigby.

Good old-fashioned word of honour is not good enough in the real world, where there is a high possibility that UK plc will lose money in the unpredictable aftermath of 1 January.

Martyn Emery, head of consultancy, Corporation 2000, says: "It's pathetic. This is a very, very hard fight and a gentleman's agreement won't exist in the real corporate world. The UK government is living in a dreamworld."

Action 2000 continues to defend its stance. Andy Nurse, programme manager for Pledge 2000, claims: "Pledge 2000 is set at a level that is more appropriate to the UK." He claims the US needs the Act "because of its anti-trust laws and the American propensity to litigate."

But as Rigby says: "I do not think people appreciate the significance of this Act. Companies say they want zero litigation - that will last up until 1 January."

A Good Samaritan Act for the UK already has the backing of the Confederation of British Industry, which praised its "sound objectives".

But Nick Lockett, counsel at law firm, Sidley & Austin, says that while it may be a good idea, the success of the Act depends on its ultimate goal.

Lockett claims that although one cannot raise a statement made, one does have the evidence to know which questions to ask in a court of law, thus circumventing the protection offered by the Act.

But Lockett said that if the Act protects the information produced and released, then "it will create a scope for an abuse of the legal system, since companies will release all Y2K material under the Act and will be effectively be immune from suit."

As the millennium fast approaches, the likelihood that legislation will be introduced fades. Too little time, not enough support, as one observer put it.

Or as Corporation 2000's Emery says: "The UK government doesn't get it yet."