Litigation Commons^™

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Voting Matters: Materiality Considerations And The Shareholder Vote, Renee M. Jones

Seattle University Law Review

For the shareholder franchise to have meaning, shareholders must have access to relevant information to inform their voting decisions. The securities laws’ disclosure requirements play an essential role in informing the shareholder vote.

This Essay focuses on the question of the materiality of information in the context of shareholder voting. It addresses the question of whether ESG-related information is material, positioning the materiality inquiry within the context of shareholders’ voting decisions. It explores the definition of materiality with a focus on the “reasonable investor” concept embedded within the definition. The Essay argues that the implicit expectations of many commentators that …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

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 …

Volume 48 Masthead, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Volume 48 Masthead

Reading The Tea Leaves: Unrealized Income, Separation Of Powers, And An Examination Of Whether There Is More To The Moore Case Than The Mandatory Repatriation Tax, Natasha Varyani

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

No-Hire Rulings Forget Competition, Val Ricks

American University Law Review

Two recent and noted antitrust rulings on the legality of no-hire (or “no-poach”) agreements paid lip service to preserving and promoting competition for employees but in the end failed to apply competition as a standard. Instead—and this is seen only deep in the weeds of the decisions themselves, on careful reading—judges demanded that no-hire agreements be held illegal only when they constitute abuse of market power, more or less. These decisions impliedly distinguish horizontal agreements not to compete for employees from horizontal agreements not to compete for customers, or on price. The opinions tend to “require careful economic analysis” of …

Clarifying Concreteness: Statutory Grants Of Standing After Spokeo And Transunion, Naomi Eid

FIU Law Review

Article III limits the federal judicial power to deciding “cases” and “controversies,” demanding that a plaintiff suffer real, concrete, de facto harm to sue in federal court. In Spokeo and TransUnion, the Supreme Court clarified the outer limits of concreteness by making clear to plaintiffs that an injury in law is not an injury in fact. The Court largely grounded the decisions in the separation of powers, setting a tone that appears less deferential to Congress in its creation of statutory rights of action. A plaintiff does not automatically satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement whenever Congress grants a right and purports …

Notice Pleading’S Quiet Return, Alexander A. Reinert

Articles

Fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court announced two significant civil procedure decisions – Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Together, Iqbal and Twombly marked a new approach to pleading in federal courts. No longer would courts apply the forgiving notice pleading standard, in force since the 1938 adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In its place, the Court introduced plausibility pleading, inviting district courts to apply their “judicial experience and common sense” to decide whether a claim was “plausible.” Commentators expressed alarm, predicting that the new standard …

Predicting Federal Third-Party Funding Regulation, Victoria Sahani

Faculty Scholarship

Third-party funding is a global phenomenon, although regulatory enforcement is local. Regulatory approaches vary widely from country to country and within countries, especially in federal legal systems, such as Canada, Australia, and the United States. The United States federal government is learning about third-party funding with an eye toward potential future regulation. Congress has been investigating funding, as evidenced by testimony in congressional hearings, proposed federal legislation, and a nonpartisan study on third-party funding by the Government Accountability Office. In addition, after more than a decade of observation, the United States Federal Civil Rules Advisory Committee recently formed a committee …

Assembling Pieces Of Accountability For The Srebrenica Genocide, Annick Pijnenburg, Nataša Nedeski

Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal

The Srebrenica genocide has been the subject of multiple legal proceedings against various actors before different courts, at both the national and international level. Amongst others, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has sentenced various individual perpetrators, the International Court of Justice has ruled on the responsibility of the Serbian state, and Dutch courts have been asked to rule on the liability of the Dutch state and the United Nations. This raises the following question: to what extent have multiple adjudicatory mechanisms across legal regimes managed to deliver accountability for the Srebrenica genocide and what are the remaining …

The Illusory Coverage Doctrine Is Not A Doctrine At All (But It Should Be), Shannon W. Conway

Catholic University Law Review

The Illusory Coverage Doctrine, if it ever becomes a true legal doctrine, has the potential to be an incredibly useful tool in insurance law. But courts around the country take very different approaches to the doctrine, ranging from one end of the spectrum—a hard-nosed “pro-insurer” stance where coverage is not illusory so long as a policy provides any coverage—to the other—a muscular “pro-policyholder” public policy approach that requires coverage even if some other exclusion might have prevented coverage under the applicable policy. And along the spectrum are various other iterations, contributing to the complete lack of certainty or consistency about …

Across The Aggregation-Entity Divide: Personal Jurisdiction, Standing, And The Nature Of The Class Action, Charles Hill

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dignity Defended, Privacy Preserved: A Call For Improved Legal Safeguards To Shield Victims Of Intimate Crimes From Public Scrutiny, Madeline E. Brown

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Private Cause Of Action Under Maine's Unfair Trade Practices Act, Steven A. Shaw

Maine Law Review

In 1970 the Maine Legislature passed the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) which declared unlawful any "unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . ." UTPA-type statutes, now common to all states, offer several advantages. The statutes provide for a statutory award of attorneys' fees, create a private cause of action which is simple in comparison to analogous common law claims, and offer a flexible concept of unlawful conduct which many courts have shown a willingness to interpret broadly and sympathetically. Although Maine's UTPA was originally …

State V. Sweatt: An Examination Of The Current Confusion In Fourth Amendment Standing, John Archer Hobson

Maine Law Review

In State v. Sweatt the Maine Law Court held that an owner of gems being sold on consignment in a third party's store has standing under the fourth amendment to contest the seizure of the gems. The movants in Sweatt were the targets of several police searches during October and November of 1980. During these searches the police seized tourmaline gemstones which were alleged to have been stolen from Dale Sweatt's former business partner, and miscellaneous personal items belonging to the Sweatts. Subsequently, the Sweatts moved for suppression and return of all these articles. The superior court granted the movants' …

In Defense Of Civil Juries, Peter W. Culley

Maine Law Review

Criticism of the civil jury system is nothing new. In fact, virtually since its inception the civil jury has been embroiled in controversy. Typically critics argue that: the jury cannot handle the complex or technical case; there is great expense and delay attendant to trial by jury; jury adjudication is of low quality; verdicts rendered by different juries in cases involving similar facts often appear inconsistent. Recently, Justice Donald Alexander of the Maine Superior Court stated that "[t]he civil jury system has outlived its usefulness." In support of his basic premise that the civil jury system is merely an historical …

New, Derivative: Third-Party Litigation Finance And Derivatives Regulation, Martin Flores

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Litigation finance is globally abundant and largely unregulated in the United States. The mechanics behind third-party litigation finance are simple: The funder fronts litigation costs in exchange for a promised share of the proceeds if the litigant succeeds. While the normative debate about the value of these contracts in society endures, the litigation finance industry has new players in hedge funds and other opaque investment firms seeking high returns from risky litigation. Many scholars agree on whether to regulate these third-party litigation finance firms. The key debate rages on how to rein in an unbridled industry.

To add to this …

Stitch Incoming: Lindke V. Freed’S Impact On Social-Media-Blocking Litigation, Clare R. Norins, Mark L. Bailey

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Since at least 2016, social-media-blocking litigation against government officials who censor their online critics has been an evolving battleground for First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. In 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its first substantive opinion on social media blocking, holding that government officials’ social media activity, even on a personal account, constitutes state action triggering constitutional scrutiny if (1) the official possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when she spoke on social media.

In this Article, we explain the Court’s novel two-part test for determining …

Hanover Insurance Co. V. Hayward: Imposition Of Punitive Damages In Addition To Criminal Sanctions, David P. Silk

Maine Law Review

In Hanover Insurance Co. v. Hayward, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, addressed the issue whether punitive damages may be awarded against a defendant who has been criminally convicted for the conduct giving rise to the punitive damages claim. Although it affirmed the superior court's decision not to allow the award of punitive damages, the Law Court concluded that the imposition of criminal sanctions did not by itself bar punitive damages. Instead, the court indicated that criminal punishment is merely one factor to consider in determining whether an award of punitive damages would serve a meaningful …