Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Procedure (3)
- Antitrust (2)
- Drugs (2)
- FTC (2)
- Hatch-Waxman (2)
-
- Innovation (2)
- Paragraph IV (2)
- Patent (2)
- Pay for delay (2)
- Pharmaceuticals (2)
- Practice and Procedure (2)
- Regulation (2)
- Reverse payment (2)
- Securities Law (2)
- Settlement (2)
- Actavis (1)
- Attorney fees (1)
- Class Actions (1)
- Class actions (1)
- Complex Litigation (1)
- Complex litigation (1)
- Dispute Resolution (1)
- Empirical legal studies (1)
- Environmental Law (1)
- Expedited discovery (1)
- FRCP (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Fiduciary duty (1)
- Forum selection (1)
- Government Regulation (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Business
Mootness Fees, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon, Randall Thomas
Mootness Fees, Matthew D. Cain, Jill E. Fisch, Steven Davidoff Solomon, Randall Thomas
All Faculty Scholarship
In response to a sharp increase in litigation challenging mergers, the Delaware Chancery Court issued the 2016 Trulia decision, which substantively reduced the attractiveness of Delaware as a forum for these suits. In this Article, we empirically assess the response of plaintiffs’ attorneys to these developments. Specifically, we document a troubling trend—the flight of merger litigation to federal court where these cases are overwhelmingly resolved through voluntary dismissals that provide no benefit to the plaintiff class but generate a payment to plaintiffs’ counsel in the form of a mootness fee. In 2018, for example, 77% of deals with litigation were …
The Importance Of Being Dismissive: The Efficiency Role Of Pleading Stage Evaluation Of Shareholder Litigation, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Michael L. Wachter
The Importance Of Being Dismissive: The Efficiency Role Of Pleading Stage Evaluation Of Shareholder Litigation, Lawrence A. Hamermesh, Michael L. Wachter
All Faculty Scholarship
It has been claimed that the risk/reward dynamics of shareholder litigation have encouraged quick settlements with substantial attorneys’ fee awards but no payment to shareholders, regardless of the merits of the case. Fee-shifting charter and bylaw provisions may be too blunt a tool to control agency costs associated with excessive shareholder litigation, and are in any event now prohibited by Delaware statute. We claim, however, that active judicial supervision of public company shareholder litigation at an early stage reduces the costs of frivolous litigation to shareholders by separating meritorious from unmeritorious litigation before the full costs of discovery are incurred. …
The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
The Actavis Inference: Theory And Practice, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
In FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the Supreme Court considered "reverse payment" settlements of patent infringement litigation. In such a settlement, a patentee pays the alleged infringer to settle, and the alleged infringer agrees not to enter the market for a period of time. The Court held that a reverse payment settlement violates antitrust law if the patentee is paying to avoid competition. The core insight of Actavis is the Actavis Inference: a large and otherwise unexplained payment, combined with delayed entry, supports a reasonable inference of harm to consumers from lessened competition.
This paper is an effort to assist courts …
Actavis And Error Costs: A Reply To Critics, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
Actavis And Error Costs: A Reply To Critics, Aaron S. Edlin, C. Scott Hemphill, Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Carl Shapiro
All Faculty Scholarship
The Supreme Court’s opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. provided fundamental guidance about how courts should handle antitrust challenges to reverse payment patent settlements. In our previous article, Activating Actavis, we identified and operationalized the essential features of the Court’s analysis. Our analysis has been challenged by four economists, who argue that our approach might condemn procompetitive settlements.
As we explain in this reply, such settlements are feasible, however, only under special circumstances. Moreover, even where feasible, the parties would not actually choose such a settlement in equilibrium. These considerations, and others discussed in the reply, serve to …
Aggregation On The Couch: The Strategic Uses Of Ambiguity And Hypocrisy, Stephen B. Burbank
Aggregation On The Couch: The Strategic Uses Of Ambiguity And Hypocrisy, Stephen B. Burbank
All Faculty Scholarship
In this Essay, Professor Burbank comments on the essays by Professors Nagareda and Issacharoff. Welcoming the opportunity to revisit the interplay between procedure and substantive law and the question of democratic accountability that Professor Nagareda’s essay presents, Professor Burbank concludes that the parts of that essay are greater than the whole. He finds that Professor Nagareda’s pursuit of unifying themes and a general normative theory leads to inconsistencies in classification between procedure and substance and to an impoverished vision of institutional legitimacy. Professor Burbank voices concern that this quest, which is also evident in the current draft of the American …
Offer-Of-Judgment Rules And Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study Of Automobile Insurance Litigation In The East, Tom Baker, Albert H. Yoon
Offer-Of-Judgment Rules And Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study Of Automobile Insurance Litigation In The East, Tom Baker, Albert H. Yoon
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Introduction To The Principles And Rules Of Transnational Civil Procedure, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Michele Taruffo, Rolf Sturner, Anthony Gidi
Introduction To The Principles And Rules Of Transnational Civil Procedure, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Michele Taruffo, Rolf Sturner, Anthony Gidi
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Incentives To Settle Under Joint And Several Liability: An Empirical Analysis Of Superfund Litigation, Howard F. Chang, Hilary Sigman
Incentives To Settle Under Joint And Several Liability: An Empirical Analysis Of Superfund Litigation, Howard F. Chang, Hilary Sigman
All Faculty Scholarship
Congress may soon restrict joint and several liability for cleanup of contaminated sites under Superfund. We explore whether this change would discourage settlements and is therefore likely to increase the program 's already high litigation costs per site. Recent theoretical research by Kornhauser and Revesz finds that joint and several liability may either encourage or discourage settlement, depending on the correlation of outcomes at trial across defendants. We extend their two-defendant model to a richer framework with N defendants. This extension allows us to test the theoretical model empirically using data on Superfund litigation. We find that joint and several …
As Time Goes By: New Questions About The Statute Of Limitations For Rule 10b-5, Jill E. Fisch
As Time Goes By: New Questions About The Statute Of Limitations For Rule 10b-5, Jill E. Fisch
All Faculty Scholarship
In this Article. Professor Fisch examines the history and legacy of Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilberston, the controversial 1991 Supreme Court decision that established a federal statute of limitations for private causes of action brought under Rule 10b-5. In Part I Professor Fisch reviews the history of the 10b-5 statute of limitations prior to LampE Part II then analyzes both the issues resolved and questions raised by Lampf. Part III traces the congressional reaction to Lampf that culminated in the addition of section 27A to the Securities Act of 1934. In Part IV, Professor Fisch concludes by …
Start Making Sense: An Analysis And Proposal For Insider Trading Regulation, Jill E. Fisch
Start Making Sense: An Analysis And Proposal For Insider Trading Regulation, Jill E. Fisch
All Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.