scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Jones Day

About: Jones Day is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Arbitration. The organization has 118 authors who have published 112 publications receiving 882 citations.


Papers
More filters
01 Nov 2019
TL;DR: The present contributions were gathered following up the 10th edition of the "New Frontiers of Antitrust" annual Concurrences review Conference held in Paris on June 14th, 2019, at the French National Archives.
Abstract: The present contributions were gathered following up the 10th edition of the “New Frontiers of Antitrust” annual Concurrences review Conference held in Paris on June 14th, 2019, at the French…

1 citations

05 May 2021
TL;DR: The European Commission has faced significant pressure from stakeholders to quickly address growing concerns over the distortive effects of foreign influence on the European Union's economic policies as discussed by the authors, and has responded to these concerns.
Abstract: In Short The Situation: The European Commission ("Commission") has faced significant pressure from stakeholders to quickly address growing concerns over the distortive effects of foreign…

1 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) on the federal court jurisdiction of class actions has been extensively studied by scholars and practitioners and in the popular press as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Much has been written by scholars and practitioners and in the popular press about the profound impact of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) on jurisdiction over class actions. It is well known that under CAFA, most major class actions, including virtually all multistate class actions, will now be heard in federal court. But Congress attempted to address more than just the concern of perceived plaintiff-oriented bias by state court judges; it also sought to address the problem of class settlements that mainly benefit lawyers rather than class members. With respect to its jurisdictional objective, Congress was largely successful. The statute has some ambiguities that will need to be worked out, but, in general, CAFA's impact on federal court jurisdiction will be immediate and significant. Congress addressed a discrete problem - getting most class actions to federal court - and its solution will largely accomplish that result. On the settlement front, however, Congress lacked any clear understanding of what it was trying to fix. As a result, the so-called "problem" of class action settlements is ill-defined, and Congress has passed a series of unrelated provisions that achieve little and raise more questions than they answer. This Article analyzes the settlement provisions of CAFA. Part I looks at what Congress sought to achieve in CAFA's settlement provisions and the problems and ambiguities created by the language of the statute. Part II argues that Congress did not fix the problem it attempted to address and offers a proposal to amend CAFA to achieve that purpose.

1 citations

31 Aug 2011
TL;DR: Wang et al. as discussed by the authors published new rules to implement the national security review that will be conducted as part of the review of mergers and acquisitions by foreign investors and involving Chinese entities.
Abstract: China has published new rules to implement the national security review that will be conducted as part of the review of mergers and acquisitions by foreign investors and involving Chinese…

1 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Glenn S. Arden1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the excessive regulatory authority granted under Dodd-Frank could be used to unduly restrict property rights and could sap the energy of American capitalism, arguing that the role of external factors, including the weakening of the dollar and the rise in energy prices, combined with an industry all too eager to make handwringing mea culpas, in the precipitation and response to the financial crisis.
Abstract: Does the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 endanger the future of capitalism itself ? In this article, the author warns that the excessive regulatory authority granted under Dodd-Frank could be used to unduly restrict property rights and could sap the energy of American capitalism. The author reminds the reader that structured finance was designed to be the most rational form of finance and that for the most part securitization structures were not to blame for the financial crisis. The author also challenges the view that excessive greed and negligence within the structured finance and securitization industry were the primary drivers of the crisis. Rather, the author discusses the role of external factors, including the weakening of the dollar and the rise in energy prices, as well as the aggressive shorting of the credit markets, combined with an industry all too eager to make hand-wringing mea culpas, in the precipitation and response to the crisis. While the undesirable effects of Dodd-Frank can be ameliorated through regulatory action or inaction, ultimate relief may have to come from the repeal of offending provisions of the legislation. The author discusses some of the constitutional concerns with Dodd-Frank, but ultimately concludes that true freedom from the Act’s restrictions will require political action.

1 citations


Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Indiana University
150K papers, 6.3M citations

63% related

Drexel University
51.4K papers, 1.9M citations

63% related

University of California, Irvine
113.6K papers, 5.5M citations

63% related

Northwestern University
188.8K papers, 9.4M citations

63% related

The Chinese University of Hong Kong
93.6K papers, 3M citations

63% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20214
20201
20196
20183
20171
20163