Transportation Law Commons^™

Understanding The Big Three’S Wavering Support Of Environmental And Social Shareholder Proposals, Jeff Schwartz, Jefferson Jensen

Seattle University Law Review

Because of their substantial equity portfolios, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street (the Big 3) are central players in corporate governance. It is, therefore, critical to understand how they vote. One puzzle is that their support for shareholder proposals on environmental and social matters appears to waiver. In 2020, for instance, BlackRock supported 11.1% of environmental proposals at S&P 500 firms. In 2021, it seemingly reversed course, supporting 55.2%. It then flipped again, supporting 32.1% in 2022. Such statistics suggest that the Big 3 are constantly changing their views on these topics. This Article seeks to better understand whether this is …

How The Antidiscrimination Law Of Commercial Transactions Really Works, Helen Norton

Seattle University Law Review

A variety of businesses now cite 303 Creative when seeking First Amendment protection for their refusal to serve certain customers based on those customers’ protected class status. How this litigation will play out remains to be seen. But future courts need not, and should not, repeat the 303 Creative Court’s misunderstanding of how the antidiscrimination law of commercial transactions actually works.

Part I of this Essay explains the Court’s longstanding understanding of the antidiscrimination law of commercial transactions, and then describes the Court’s failure to engage with this precedent in 303 Creative. Part II then identifies the 303 Creative decision’s …

The Federal Maritime Commission’S New Framework For Ocean Carrier Accountability: Analysis Of The Mcs Industries And Oj Commerce Decisions, Heewan Noh, Jie Shi

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This article examines two 2024 Federal Maritime Commission (FMC or “Commission”) cases that significantly impact the interpretation of ocean carrier accountability under the Shipping Act of 1984: MCS Industries, Inc. v. COSCO Shipping Lines Co. Ltd. and OJ Commerce, LLC v. Hamburg Südamerikanische Dampfschifffahrts-Gesellschaft A/S & Co. KG. This article argues that the FMC, whose mission is to “[e]nsure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices,” continues to make ongoing efforts to clarify and enforce protecting shippers’ rights. These efforts focus particularly on (i) …

Is There A Regulator In The Polish Electronic Delivery Market? The Role Of The President Of Uke, Mateusza Chołodecki

internetowy Kwartalnik Antymonopolowy i Regulacyjny (internet Quarterly on Antitrust and Regulation)

This paper examines the regulatory role of the President of the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) within the electronic delivery market in Poland, focusing specifically on the statutory competencies granted by the Electronic Delivery Act. The paper identifies significant limitations of the President of UKE’s current regulatory scope, by analysing these competencies and their alignment with Poland’s postal and telecommunications regulatory frameworks. The analysis reveals that the regulatory powers of the President UKE that concern electronic delivery services are narrowly defined, primarily covering oversight over tariffs, T&Cs, and operator designation, without broader supervisory authority or clearly articulated regulatory objectives. Consequently, …