Results matching “kranenburg”

Blogroll - Links

Around the web, August 16 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Twenty years of Sentencing Guidelines for corporate compliance. [Paul McNulty]
  • AT&T Mobility sues to stop scheme to misuse arbitration to block merger. [complaint @ Reuters (h/t W.K.); earlier at POL]
  • Presser: Obama likely to stall Supreme Court consideration of healthcare reform constitutionality. [LNL]
  • No honor among trial-lawyers: six class action law firms file copycat lawsuits free-riding off of e-book antitrust conspiracy theory. [Frankel]
  • ABA censures Villanova Law for misleading students about employment prospects, Villanova buries censure on its website. [ABA; related at NLJ]
  • IJ wins Supreme Court battle over Arizona clean elections law, a victory for free speech. [IJ; earlier on POL]
  • That Righthaven business model runs into the wee problem that it is explicitly precluded by law. [Property Intangible; Legal Satyricon; EFF; OL]

  • Jeff Koons drops his litigation claiming exclusive rights to balloon-dog-shaped sculpture. [Artinfo; NYT]

Arbitration jiu-jitsu against AT&T Mobility? - PointOfLaw Forum

In the wake of the wailing and moaning over AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, I noted that the arbitration provision AT&T Mobility propounded was so consumer-friendly that consumers would invariably be individually better off arbitrating than as a class representative, much less as a class member. The lack of a class-action procedure would only adversely affect plaintiffs with meritless claims; those with meritorious common claims would find attorneys willing to bring en masse arbitrations.

As it turns out, the threshold of probability of success needed to profitably bring mass arbitration claims might be lower than even I imagined: entrepreneurial attorneys are recruiting AT&T Mobility customers to bring arbitration claims under the Clayton Act over the pending proposed merger with Sprint, using the arbitration provision's promise of a $10,000 bounty as enticement. (The attorneys are claiming a right to a 50% contingent fee plus expenses, so it's unclear how much of that will ever go to consumers.) Given that a Clayton Act plaintiff doesn't have to be an existing AT&T customer with an arbitration provision, it's clear that some plaintiffs' attorneys would prefer to arbitrate under AT&T Mobility's arbitration rules rather than litigate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. But you won't hear Al Franken admit that. (h/t W.K.)

Denmark introduces class actions - PointOfLaw Forum

Werner Kranenburg has details (see also).

Shell settlement hailed as Europe-wide class action - PointOfLaw Forum

The oil giant agreed to pay roughly $400 million to investors, and U.S. securities plaintiffs' lawyers are crowing that it's a breakthrough for their mighty efforts to open up the virgin soil of Europe for U.S.-style class actions. More: W$J ("'It's the first pan-European settlement of a securities-fraud case that I'm aware of,' said Jay Eisenhofer of Delaware-based Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., the lead law firm representing the European investors."), Roberts, Best in Class.

More: Werner Kranenburg has begun what he promises will be a series of posts on the settlement (first, second).

Equity exodus: the role of sanctions? - PointOfLaw Forum

Via Kranenburg, interesting Financial Times article floating a different theory of the capital markets competitiveness crisis: during the late 1990s various U.S. domestic factions demanded that capital markets be closed to Chinese and Russian capital issuers, on geopolitical or human-rights grounds. The result? Fear of future sanctions, or other forms of "political risk", now keeps issuers from those countries and elsewhere distrustful of U.S. capital markets. So at least argues Benn Steil of the Council on Foreign Relations, who stated his case at greater length in a 2005 paper. P.S. Great minds think alike etc.: another version ran in the Apr. 5 New York Sun.

Around the web, March 16 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway spent $14 million extra on accountants last year because of Sarbanes-Oxley [Carney/DealBreaker]

  • "Human greed has no bounds" says Microsoft, objecting to counsel fees in Wisconsin class action [Koppel/WSJ law blog]

  • Regarding that cy pres-funded antitrust documentary: c'mon, David, winning an award doesn't mean it's not propaganda [Giacalone; earlier post here]

  • Class-actioneer Michael Hausfeld hits London in a whirl of publicity [Times Online, Kranenburg]

  • Sure, cardiac catheterization can cause chronic mental illness. What do you mean you're skeptical? [KevinMD, WV Record]

  • Layoffs at prominent asbestos/toxic tort firm Baron & Budd [Texas Lawyer]

Chamber weighs in on financial competitiveness - PointOfLaw Forum

With its own bipartisan commission, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has weighed into the debate on capital markets competitiveness, following the Paulson report, Bloomberg/Schumer, and others. The report and executive summary are here; blog reactions and comments from Prof. Bainbridge, Werner Kranenburg, Securities Law Prof Blog, and SOX Center.

Parade of new blogs - PointOfLaw Forum

Werner Kranenburg, who has been mentioned in this space as a commentator on as well as practitioner of securities class action law, now has his own site, KranenburgEsq. is certainly one of the better names for a law student blog, although it turns out the student-author isn't seriously planning to carry out that threat (via Schaeffer). Traditional Notions (also via Schaeffer) is worth a look if only for the post explaining its choice of name in reference to the latter-day history of personal jurisdiction doctrine. And a new blog by Robert Shattuck, Attacking Plaintiff's Lawyers in Alabama, lives up to its single-minded name.

Paulson report, cont'd - PointOfLaw Forum

Ted isn't the only one who found the committee's actual policy recommendations to be rather weak tea, given the report's alarming diagnosis of flagging U.S. financial competitiveness. (Given that Floyd Norris and Stephen Labaton at the Times are going to blast you anyway, why not go for what really needs doing?) The New York Post, in an article given the sprightly title "Sarbox Detox Now: Panel", says "some criticism of [the] report" for not going far enough "came from the venture capital business":

"This is a step in the right direction, but it does not go nearly far enough to address the deep roots of the problem," said Bob Grady, a partner at Carlyle Venture Partners. "There were way too many 'established company' guys on this committee, and not enough people who think about job creation."

Grady, who is also chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, said that the cost for small companies to comply with Section 404 is the same as for large companies.

"It is insane that a start-up with a handful of employees has to pay the exact same amount to comply with the law as Wal-Mart," he said. "We won't see a sustained expansion of U.S. listing activity until this is addressed."

Thanks to the many blogs that linked my London Times column of last week on the subject, among them InstaPundit, Stephen Bainbridge, Wired GC, D and O Diary, TigerHawk, Cities on a Hill (more here), and (guestblogging at Lies, Damn Lies and Forward-Looking Statements) Werner Kranenburg.

UK shareholder suits, cont'd - PointOfLaw Forum

Werner Kranenburg writes to say:

An update to your Sept. 19 post ("UK plans to liberalize scope for derivative suits"):

The Companies Act 2006 (formerly the Company Law Reform Bill) received royal assent last week.

For debates on the Bill in the House of Commons, including on derivative claims and derivative proceedings, see this link.

For comments from law firms, especially whereas derivative claims are concerned, see
- Norton Rose (the most comprehensive one of these three)
- Freshfields (PDF)
- Ashurst (Word document)

I�d argue it won�t, as reported, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating whether or not the Act will lead to increased litigation or not indeed.