Law Commons^™

Beyond The Borders: The Rise Of Judicial Corruption And Universal Jurisdiction, Rose Mahdavieh

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Shareholders’ Agreements In Public Corporations In Chile: What Are We Missing Out?, Gonzalo Islas, Osvaldo Lagos, Iván Cerda

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

Shareholders’ agreements are quite common in many jurisdictions. Theory and empirical evidence suggest that they may have a positive or a negative impact on corporate governance structures depending on companies’ characteristics and on the goals that these contracts pursue. Shareholders’ agreements may be used as Control Enhancement Mechanisms (CEM) allowing controllers to circumvent rules that favor minority investors. However, comparing to other CEM, in many countries information regarding them is scarce. Is it necessary that shareholders’ agreements in public corporations be fully informed?

We examine the case of Chile (a country that only requires to inform that a shareholder agreement …

Courthouse Doors Are Closed To Foreign Citizens For International Law Torts Committed By American Corporations, Gisell Landrian

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

This Note examines the intersection of corporate accountability, human rights violations, and legal recourse for victims of child slavery in the cocoa industry inspired by the Court’s decision Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe. This decision further limited the scope of the Alien Tort Statute, hindering the plaintiffs’ quest for justice for international human rights violations. The Note analyzes the decision in Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe through (1) an examination of the Court’s limitations on the Alien Tort Statute and (2) an analysis of the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Nevsun.

The Detention Of Immigration Policy: How States Are Commandeering Dhs Enforcement Guidelines, Brianna Riguera

University of Miami Inter-American Law Review

In 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued immigration guidelines that de-emphasized detention and removal of non-citizens who, aside from being undocumented, are otherwise contributing members of communities across the United States. However, Arizona, Montana, Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana challenged these guidelines, launching a nuanced legal dispute that concerned states standing under Article III, prosecutorial discretion, and nationwide preliminary injunctions. In United States v. Texas, the Court ruled 8-1 that the states lacked standing and reversed the Fifth Circuit’s nationwide injunction, but the majority opinion failed to address the other legal issues that are pressing on a rife debate about …