Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Corporate Monitor: The New Corporate Czar?, Vikramaditya Khanna, Timothy L. Dickinson
The Corporate Monitor: The New Corporate Czar?, Vikramaditya Khanna, Timothy L. Dickinson
Michigan Law Review
Following the recent spate of corporate scandals, government enforcement authorities have increasingly relied upon corporate monitors to help ensure law compliance and reduce the number of future violations. These monitors also permit enforcement authorities, such as the Securities & Exchange Commission and others, to leverage their enforcement resources in overseeing corporate behavior. However there are few descriptive or normative analyses of the role and scope of corporate monitors. This paper provides such an analysis. After sketching out the historical development of corporate monitors, the paper examines the most common features of the current set of monitor appointments supplemented by interviews …
Awarding Attorney's Fees To Pro Se Litigants Under Rule 11, Jeremy D. Spector
Awarding Attorney's Fees To Pro Se Litigants Under Rule 11, Jeremy D. Spector
Michigan Law Review
Among the myriad rules and statutes designed to curb litigation abuse, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") is "the most widely used and most controversial of the sanctions rules." The increased use of Rule ll during the last fifteen years and the recent proliferation of fee-shifting provisions in federal statutes4 have led to an onslaught of motions for attorney's fees in the federal district courts. Simultaneously, these courts are seeing an increasing number of pro se litigants appear before them. The confluence of these two trends has produced the seemingly paradoxical result of pro se parties …
Federal Civil Procedure - Judgments - Use Of Federal Rule 60(B)(6) To Adjust Forfeitures Downward, Cecil R. Mellin
Federal Civil Procedure - Judgments - Use Of Federal Rule 60(B)(6) To Adjust Forfeitures Downward, Cecil R. Mellin
Michigan Law Review
Defendant gained eight thousand dollars through thirty false cotton loan notes submitted to and paid by a government agency. The United States instituted a civil action under the False Claims Act, which provides that persons committing the prohibited acts shall pay to the United States a two-thousand-dollar forfeiture for each violation plus double the amount of damages sustained by the United States in the transactions. Judgment totalling sixty thousand dollars, or two thousand dollars on each of thirty false notes, was awarded the United States. On defendant's motion to vacate the judgment under federal rule 60 (b) (6) on the …