A court will find a Mary-Carter-inspired agreement valid and enforceable if there is no evidence that the plaintiff and defendant are conspiring to increase the unsolved defendant`s share of liability, and if the underlying settlement agreement is entered into in an open court with the full knowledge of the non-remedial defendant, such an agreement “devoid of any indication of collusion and secrecy, which mark an unfavorable agreement of Mary Carter”. Reutzel v. Hunter Yes, Inc., 135 A.D.3d 1123, 1125 (Application N.Y. Div.3d Dep`t 2016). Therefore, disclosure of the agreement to non-produced defendants is necessary for its validity. In River Garden Farms, Inc. v. Superior Court (1972) 26 CA3d 986, 103 CR 498, the Court of Appeal first attempted to set guidelines for determining whether a transaction had been made in good faith. The court recognized that a precise definition of good faith was “neither possible nor practicable.” The Tribunal found, however, that the objective of applying a standard of good faith was to ensure that the party to the transaction paid a reasonable proportion of the potential judgment and concluded that “the price of a transaction is the principal insignia of its good or bad intent”. The Federal Supreme Court ruled Thursday that defendants who participate in so-called “sliding scale” agreements to settle liability actions must always pay a reasonable amount for their share of the fault. Secrecy is a key part of a traditional Mary Carter. However, the lack of disclosure and the inconvenience of this lack of disclosure against unin questioned defendants made Mary Carter`s traditional agreements illegal and contrary to public order. .