Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Agencies (1)
- Assist (1)
- Attorney (1)
- Burden (1)
- Civil (1)
-
- Compensatory (1)
- Damages (1)
- Deception (1)
- Defendant (1)
- Dismiss (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Harm (1)
- Inequities (1)
- International (1)
- Investigation (1)
- Iqbal (1)
- Judgment (1)
- Law (1)
- Legislatures (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Madoff (1)
- Motion (1)
- Particularity (1)
- Plausibility (1)
- Plead (1)
- Pleading (1)
- Ponzi (1)
- Problems (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Failing To Learn The Lessons Of Madoff: Problems With Applying Iqbal To Fraud Claims, Howard Gutman, Chris Garino
Failing To Learn The Lessons Of Madoff: Problems With Applying Iqbal To Fraud Claims, Howard Gutman, Chris Garino
University of Massachusetts Law Review
The Iqbal standard requires all civil actions filed in federal courts to provide detailed proof at the pleading stage for the claim to proceed. Under this standard, cases are adjudicated without the aid of discovery or deposition of witnesses. Cases are decided at the pleading stage based on the documents and statements provided by the one accused of fraud. The tools to uncover deception are not available at this stage. This article argues that the Iqbal pleading standard fails to allow civil courts to adequately detect and adjudicate fraud claims. This article explores fraudulent financial schemes, the Iqbal standard, the …
American Punitive Damages Vs. Compensatory Damages In Promoting Enforcement In Democratic Nations Of Civil Judgements To Deter State-Sponsors Of Terrorism, Jeffrey F. Addicott
American Punitive Damages Vs. Compensatory Damages In Promoting Enforcement In Democratic Nations Of Civil Judgements To Deter State-Sponsors Of Terrorism, Jeffrey F. Addicott
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Unfortunately, while the United States has established several legal avenues for civil litigation by private citizens of terror attacks against States that sponsor terrorism, a major stumbling block in terms of effectiveness rests in the reality that fellow democratic nations in the international community refuse to honor or domesticate the monetary judgments of American courts. Acknowledging that there are a plethora of political and legal obstacles associated with establishing a workable mechanism for fellow democracies to enforce the “terror” judgments of American courts, one reason that is often raised by critics is the strong objection to the matter of American …