LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
Michelle Adams on Detroit, The Supreme Court, and School Segregation
No full textJoin us for a special evening with Michelle Adams, the Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law at the University of Michigan, and former Cardozo Professor, as she discusses her acclaimed new book The Containment: Detroit, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for School Desegregation.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1017/thumbnail.jp
A Conversation with Julia Haart
No full textStep into the world of innovation and entrepreneurship with Cardozo\u27s FAME Center and the Fashion Law Society as they host an exclusive event featuring Julia Haart—CEO, designer, author, activist, producer, and the captivating star of Netflix\u27s “My Unorthodox Life.” Join her in a riveting dialogue with Professor Michelle Greenberg-Kobrin, as they delve into Julia\u27s non-traditional journey to the C-suite and her trailblazing approach to business.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1008/thumbnail.jp
The 2025 International Advocate for Peace Award Ceremony Honoring Zafra Lerman
No full textScientist, educator and humanitarian Zafra M. Lerman will receive Cardozo School of Law’s 24th International Advocate for Peace Award on March 6. The award, which originated in 2000, is presented annually by the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution to a person, organization or group that is exemplary in the field of conflict resolution.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1010/thumbnail.jp
Free, Prior, Informed Consent and Power Imbalances: Upholding Indigenous Rights on the Anniversary of Undrip
No full textOn the anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), this discussion address its crucial role in reshaping indigenous rights across Americas.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2025-2026/1018/thumbnail.jp
The First of All Freedoms: Free Speech, Antisemitism, and Lessons for the Jewish Community from the Dreyfus Affair
No full textJoin us for a thought-provoking talk with Professor Joel Swanson of Sarah Lawrence College as he explores the intense debates over free speech and its boundaries within the French Jewish community during the Dreyfus Affair. At this pivotal time, French Jews debated extensively the question of whether there should be limits on speech in the name of protecting the Jewish community. By examining these historical debates and their outcomes, Professor Swanson will highlight parallels with the current discussions surrounding American Jews, pointing to historical precedents for lessons about how to approach current controversies. This eventhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2025/1024/thumbnail.jp
Responding to Power Imbalances
No full textArbitration has long been a cornerstone of dispute resolution, but concerns persist about how the process handles disparities in resources, bargaining power, and influence between parties. This panel, moderated by Jean R. Sternlight, will explore how arbitration can adapt to meet these challenges in the next century, with panelists Michael Z. Green, Myriam Gilles, and Sarah Staszak offering insights on reforms and best practices that promote fairness, credibility, and equitable outcomes
Caremark\u27s Politics
No full textWhat propels the evolution of Delaware corporate law? In a series of persuasive articles, Professor Mark Roe explains Delaware corporate law developments as an effort to preempt federal intervention. If public outrage over corporate governance failures reaches Congress, federal lawmakers may impose reforms that undercut Delaware’s prominence and ultimately harm those that benefit from the prestige and lucre that come with it. To avoid this, Delaware courts strategically adjust doctrines to appear vigilant in protecting investors. Delaware’s adjudication of director oversight failures aligns with this account. In re Caremark, the seminal case renowned for its declaration of a proactive board-level monitoring obligation, originally situated that obligation as part of the exculpated duty of care, rendering it effectively toothless. Only a decade later, with federal encroachment a distinct possibility, did the judiciary recast that obligation as part of the nonexculpable duty of loyalty. And once the threat subsided, Caremark returned to its role as a doctrinal bogeyman, with complaints seldom withstanding a motion to dismiss. Until now. Under Marchand v. Barnhill, plaintiffs are allowed to infer that the board of directors breached their oversight obligation for “mission critical” failures that occurred under their watch. Marchand’s impact on Delaware corporate law was immediate and significant; previously Herculean pleading requirements were satisfied in greater numbers than ever before. Yet unlike the previous doctrinal shake-up, no impending federal legislation was on the horizon. What, then, explains this change? This Article contends that Marchand responds to a different challenge—one arising not from political pressure in Washington, but from a generational shift in shareholder values. As Baby Boomers gradually exit the capital markets, the shareholder base is transforming. Unlike their predecessors, Generation Xers and Millennials consider a corporation’s impact on other aspects of society in tandem with its bottom line. And the open-ended nature of “mission criticality” signals Delaware’s awareness of the incoming shareholder class’s values and willingness to require corporations to comply with their expectations. By aligning its corporate law with the priorities of the new generation of shareholders, Delaware aims to sustain its legitimacy and prevent any erosion of its status as the preeminent jurisdiction for U.S. corporate law
Empowering Digital Consent: A Risk-Focused Due Diligence Tool
No full textWe live in an era of almost infinite digital interactions, many of which involve risks to our rights stemming from various problematic practices, such as data-protection infringements, user profiling, and consumer protection violations. Currently, the protection of digital consumers against these risks rests primarily on a notice-and-consent regulatory model-users are legally presumed to have consented to the terms of service (ToS) and privacy policy agreements (PPAs) of the digital services they use. In reality, despite the gravity of the risks involved, users routinely fail to study these binding agreements. Thus, it is widely accepted that this model is ineffective at safeguarding online consumers\u27 rights, and yet no viable alternative has emerged. This Article systematically analyzes the drawbacks of previous suggestions for improvement, proposing a novel alternative regulatory mechanism: the Risk-Focused Due Diligence (RFDD) Tool. This involves two innovations. First, it creates comprehensive and comprehensible quantitative metrics that users can consult in assessing the risks posed by a given digital service, via a User Data-Protection Index. Second, while all current models disproportionally burden users with the costs of having to understand reams of ambiguous legalistic notices, the proposed tool splits the regulatory burden between users and digital service providers. It places responsibility on service providers to complete a due diligence questionnaire that clarifies the risks associated with using their digital services. Responses are then subjected to robust external verification and accuracy-enforcement mechanisms. The RFDD Tool thus represents a regulatory paradigm shift by rendering digital service providers accountable for effective notice, and empowering digital consumers by providing a transparent means to provide informed consent