LARC Cardoso Law (Yeshida Univ)
Not a member yet
9951 research outputs found
Sort by
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
Flexing the Celebrity Muscle: Celebrity Leverage in Trademark Law and Why Small Businesses Deserve Equitable Treatment
No full textThe note examines the imbalance in trademark law disputes between celebrities and small businesses, arguing that celebrities often leverage their fame and resources to gain an unfair advantage. It highlights how this dynamic can overshadow the rights of small businesses, even when they have prior use of a trademark, as seen in the case of Beauty Concepts vs. Kim Kardashian. The analysis advocates for a more equitable approach to trademark law to protect small businesses from being disadvantaged by celebrity influence
Early Neutral Evaluation: Flawed Foundations in Statistical Predictions
No full textEarly Neutral Evaluation (ENE) is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) designed to help parties resolve disputes more efficiently. It is an increasingly popular method encouraged by courts and private providers alike. ENE involves a neutral third party, often an experienced attorney or retired judge, who assesses the strengths and weaknesses of each party’s case early in the dispute. The primary goal is to encourage parties to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of their cases and their opponent’s early in the litigation process, potentially avoiding unnecessary pre-trial expenses. ENE aims to facilitate a more informed negotiation process and expedite resolution before escalation to trial. It can serve as a cost-effective substitute for formal discovery and pre-trial motions. The process can act as a “reality check” for clients and lawyers, especially when they are far apart on the merits or value of the case. While settlement isn\u27t the main goal, ENE can lead to settlement.
The print edition of the issue has also been released. This post was originally published on the Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution website on February 26, 2025
The Abuse of Neutrality
Full text linkNeutrality law is a musty and obsolete body of international law that nevertheless rears its creaky head now and again in dangerous ways, most recently in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The law of neutrality is a study in contradictions. It is obsolete yet remains on the books in treaties and military manuals. It purports to keep the peace and protect non-warring states yet today is invoked to expand conflict and protect aggressors. The legal benefits of neutrality have been entirely overtaken by other regimes. And yet neutrality law has not lost its luster despite losing its value. Instead of letting it fade into respectable oblivion, states, scholars, and practitioners continue to resurrect neutrality law as pretext for inaction and as justification for the unjustifiable. In the process, they muddy the legal waters, making escalation to war more rather than less likely. This Article seeks to put an end to this menace of neutrality law once and for all
Chief Justice Roberts Is Playing the Ostrich
No full textThe Supreme Court is under great stress, if not in crisis. So says Chief Justice John Roberts in his annual report.
In important respects, Roberts is surely correct. The public’s trust in the court has slumped to catastrophic lows; individual justices are threatened with violence; the justices’ family privacy has been upended by demonstrations at their homes; the Internet is flooded with misinformation about the court and the justices that provokes deep concern about safety and reputation
Holocaust Remembrance for Dignity and Human Rights
No full textThe United Nations General Assembly, in resolution 60/7 of 2005, designated 27 January as the annual International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, also known as International Holocaust Remembrance Day. On this day, through educational and programmatic efforts aimed at preventing future acts of genocide, we honour the memory of the 6 million Jews and members of other minority groups who fell victim to genocide and other atrocity crimes at the hands of the Nazi regime. In addition, the resolution encourages States to recommit to protecting and promoting human rights, including by preventing identity-based discrimination and violence. At its heart, Holocaust Remembrance Day represents the international community’s continuing commitment to ensuring the dignity and human rights of all minorities within the borders of every State