Showing papers by "Jones Day published in 2009"

Constitutional Clash: When English-Only Meets Voting Rights

Abstract: This paper examines the constitutional vulnerability of English-only laws as they relate to voting materials. The topic is timely in light of King v. Mauro, a recent Iowa decision that drew national attention by interpreting a state statute to bar non-English voter registration materials. In short, this paper argues that English-only policies as applied to voting are constitutionally suspect. After providing background about the English-only movement and the recent high-profile Iowa decision, the paper considers complex and uncertain areas of constitutional law, outlining how one might argue that English-only laws violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. In the end, the nation has an important choice to make: encourage participation in the electoral process, or use voting rights as means to disenfranchise language minority citizens. If the nation continues down the latter path, civil rights lawyers must be ready to respond.

Due diligence in a new era of accountability

Abstract: Following the scandalous collapse of Enron, WorldCom, and other firms, we entered a new era of accountability—which brought us the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) in 2002 It ushered in stricter standards for corporate conduct and governance But now we're experiencing a second wave of accountability and reforms Its highlights include the election of President Obama and his commitment to transparency; the failure of banks and automobile companies; the Madoff scandal; the severe global recession; and mistrust of Wall Street All this has triggered an increase in staffing at the Securities and Exchange Commission Many see vigorous enforcement actions and new GAAP standards ahead But how does this second new wave of accountability affect merger-and-acquisition (M&A) due diligence? And how can your firm avoid its dangers? The authors take a close look at how to operate in this new environment © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Accessing the Impact of Regulatory and Statutory Changes to the Family and Medical Leave Act

Abstract: In 2008, Congress amended the Family and Medical Leave Act (FLMA) by the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act. Consequently, there are now two more qualifying reasons for protected leave under the FMLA with accompanying definitions and procedures relating to what is now informally referred to as “family member military leave.” Not only has the law expanded to include additional protected leaves of absence, but the DOL also revised its FMLA regulations in 2009 with a result of dramatically changing various aspects of administration of the law for both employers and employees. As a result of all these changes, employers are now operating in a significantly different legal and regulatory arena as it relates to the FMLA. This article highlights some of the more significant changes that will require thought and action on the part of employers as they consider how best to operate under this new statutory and regulatory landscape.

Measuring the Value of Class and Collective Action Employment Settlements: A Preliminary Assessment

Abstract: This article represents an initial effort to test, quantitatively, whether the class or collective action is a necessary vehicle for resolving employment disputes because typical claims are not valuable enough for individuals to pursue on their own. Because most class actions ultimately settle, this study begins the process of evaluating the hypothesis by calculating the potential recoveries individual members of class actions are likely to receive in class action settlements as a comparison point for awards obtained in individual employment arbitration. Examining public data on employment class or collective action settlements, we find that with the exception perhaps of certain “off the clock” wage-hour and ERISA claims, the average individual potential recovery found was not an insignificant amount, and though still generally smaller than the average employment arbitration awards, calls into question the “negative value” justification for the claimed superiority of class action litigation. Much work needs to be done to determine if these potential recoveries would be obtainable in individual litigation or arbitration, or whether there is something special about the class or collective action vehicle that makes possible such potential recoveries. We would also need to account for a selection bias in class action cases—that plaintiffs’ lawyers may underreport less favorable settlements and are highly selective in picking cases for class action treatment. If so, the characteristics of individual and class claims may differ in systematic ways. In the interim, our data show that potential individual recoveries for many types of employment disputes are valuable enough to place in question the arguments that these are “negative value” cases that will be brought forward, if at all, only through the class or collective action vehicle.

Measuring the Value of Class and Collective Action Employment Settlements: A Preliminary Assessment

Abstract: This paper represents an initial effort to test, quantitatively, whether the class or collective action is a necessary vehicle for resolving employment disputes because typical claims are not valuable enough for individuals to pursue them on their own. Because most class actions ultimately settle, this study begins the process of evaluating the hypothesis by calculating the potential recoveries individual members of class actions are slated to receive in class action settlements as a comparison point for awards obtained in individual employment arbitration. Examining public data on employment class or collective action settlements, we find that with the exception perhaps of certain off the clock wage-hour and ERISA claims, the average individual potential recovery found was not an insignificant amount, though still generally smaller than the average employment arbitration awards. This result calls into question the negative value justification for the claimed superiority of class action litigation. Much work needs to be done to determine if these potential recoveries would be obtainable in individual litigation or arbitration, or whether there is something special about the class action vehicle that makes possible such potential recoveries. We would also need to account for a selection bias in class action cases - that plaintiff lawyers may under-report less favorable settlements and are highly selective in picking cases for class action treatment. If so, the characteristics of individual and class claims may differ in systematic ways. In the interim, our data shows that potential individual recoveries for many types of employment disputes are valuable enough to place in question the arguments that these are negative value cases that will be brought forward, if at all, only through the class action vehicle.

Towards an optimal enforcement of competition rules in Europe: Time for a Review of Regulation 1/2003?

Abstract: The Fifth annual conference of the Global Competition Law Centre, held in Brussels on 11-12 June 2009, was dedicated to the Commission's review of EC Regulation 1/2003. These contributions are the…

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee holds hearings on pending resale price maintenance (RPM) federal legislation

Abstract: The enactment of a Maryland state antitrust law prohibiting minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements and U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearings on similar pending…

A Chinese Court issues second abuse of dominance's decision under the new anti-monopoly law (Baidu,TRISC)

Abstract: On December 18, 2009, a Chinese court ruled in favor of Baidu, Inc. (“Baidu”), allegedly the largest Chinese search engine company, in a lawsuit filed by Tangshan Renren Information Service Company…

The Court of Congressional Contempt

Abstract: This Article argues that Congress's contemporary practice of certifying instances of contempt of Congress to the U.S. Attorney for prosecution leaves Congress vulnerable to the prosecutorial discretion of the executive branch. Because of this vulnerability, the Houses of Congress should instead resort to the historical practice of ordering their respective Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the contemnor and bring him to the bar of the offended chamber for trial and punishment. After laying out the need to resort to this common-law practice in certain cases, the Article discusses three procedures by which a modern Congress could punish for contempt: full-scale trial before the entire chamber; delegation of evidence gathering functions to committee; and referral of the matter to a proposed "Court of Congressional Contempt."

The Australian Senate passes a bill that introduces new criminal and civil offenses on cartel conduct (Trade Practices Amendment - Cartel Conduct and Other measures - Bill 2009)

Abstract: Following the international trend towards criminalizing cartel offenses, the Australian Senate passed a bill on June 16 that amends the key antitrust law in Australia, the Trade Practices Act…

The Australian Senate passes a bill that introduces new criminal and civil offenses on cartel conduct

Abstract: Following the international trend towards criminalizing cartel offenses, the Australian Senate passed a bill on June 16 that amends the key antitrust law in Australia, the Trade Practices Act…

One Student, One Vote? Equal Protection & Campus Elections

Abstract: This Note considers the application of the constitutional law principle of "one person, one vote" to campus elections at public universities. It begins by discussing the history, scope, and current application of the "one person, one vote" principle. Then, it considers whether elected student governments at public universities might be sufficiently governmental to trigger "one person, one vote." Assuming they are, the Note uses the elected student governments at the University of Georgia and the University of Michigan as representative examples of how current methods of student government apportionment violate "one person, one vote." Finally, notwithstanding constitutional concerns, the Note argues that student governments should comply with "one person, one vote" as a matter of good policy.