Emory Law Scholarly Commons
Not a member yet
2100 research outputs found
Sort by
Double-Sided Shareholder Primacy : Even More Powerful Corporate Governance Machine in China than the United States?
Full text linkThis article examines the emergence of a “double-sided shareholder primacy” in China’s corporate governance, contrasting it with the U.S. “single-sided shareholder primacy”. While the U.S. emphasizes shareholder interests as the corporate purpose but centralizes governance power in boards, China’s system uniquely combines shareholder-centric corporate objectives and concentrated shareholder control, reinforced by a more powerful “Corporate Governance Machine.” This machine integrates legal transplants (e.g., extreme shareholder meeting authority), ternary controllers (state, family, and minority stockholders), cultural ideologies favoring power concentration, and political metaphors likening meetings of shareholders to sovereign bodies. Despite its entrenchment, China’s 2024 Company Law revisions reveal efforts to curb shareholder overreach by introducing board-centric governance, mirroring U.S. director-decision making centric. While China’s “double-sided” model entrenches shareholder dominance more powerfully than the U.S., its effectiveness is increasingly questioned, prompting regulatory recalibration toward balancing stakeholder interests
Frandship Ended with Anti-Suit Injunctions? U.S. and European Responses to Chinese Anti-Suit Injunctions in Standard-Essential Patent Litigation
Full text linkDefying Goldilocks: Why the FLSA Collective Action Notice Standard Set Forth in Lusardi is “Just Right”
Full text linkSince the 1980s, federal district courts have applied a lenient standard under § 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), allowing plaintiffs to more easily notify “similarly situated” coworkers of an employer’s potential minimum wage and overtime violations. But recent circuit court decisions have contested this lenient standard. And today, three approaches exist for sending notice to “similarly situated” coworkers hoping to form an FLSA collective action: one lenient, one strict, and one attempting to chart a middle ground. Challenges to the lenient standard threaten workers’ abilities to vindicate their rights and uphold their inherit dignity, eroding fairness in the economy.
Restoring the proper power relations between an employee and their employer is a critical element in shepherding a robust and equitable twenty-first century economy. The FLSA provides the necessary framework to do so; therefore, the courage marshaled by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the progressive movement of the New Deal era must be revived to counter the challenges of a “Second Gilded Age” and safeguard our democracy.
This Comment argues that the Supreme Court can best protect workers most vulnerable to unjust pay by adopting the lenient notice standard set forth in Lusardi v. Xerox Corp. for FLSA collective action cases, a standard used by district courts nationwide for nearly four decades. In the context of workers’ rights, then, Goldilocks was wrong: A lenient standard is, in fact, “just right.
Eléonore Raoul: Early Years as Women\u27s Suffrage Advocate and Law Student (1916-1920)
No full texthttps://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/er_images/1013/thumbnail.jp
Eléonore Raoul: Early Years as Women\u27s Suffrage Advocate and Law Student (1916-1920)
No full texthttps://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/er_images/1003/thumbnail.jp
The New Constitutional Challenge to Qui Tam
Full text linkFollowing the June 2023 Supreme Court decision in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., the ability of qui tam relators to litigate False Claims Act actions faces renewed challenges on multiple constitutional grounds. Specifically, in his Polansky dissent, Justice Thomas raises a novel Article I concern that Congress does not have the authority to partially assign the government’s litigation claim to relators, thus leaving them without standing to sue. Defendants in False Claims Act cases have already begun raising Thomas’s constitutional arguments in federal courts. What is heralded as the government’s most effective tool to combat fraud, and that has successfully recovered billions of dollars from fraudsters, is potentially facing its demise.
This Comment proposes two solutions for courts to apply when analyzing this Article I challenge. First, this Comment asserts that courts should employ an expansive reading of the Property Clause of the Constitution to include intangible personal property legal claims, thereby validating the False Claims Act’s partial assignment as congressional standing to qui tam relators. Second, by building on existing precedent where the Supreme Court has upheld similar statutes as constitutional through Congress’s spending power, courts should apply the Necessary and Proper Clause as an additional source of Congress’s power to create assignments. Both the Property Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause serve as an appropriate source of congressional power to grant whistleblowers the ability to sue on behalf of the government. By applying the solutions proposed in this Comment, qui tam and the False Claims Act should survive this new constitutional threat
Expertise, Ideology, and Dissent
Full text linkPart I sketches a theory of dissent, explaining how voting and opinion-writing behavior on a multi-member court, such as a federal court of appeals, is a function of both a judge\u27s preferences, as well as costs, including the relational disruption that comes from disagreeing with colleagues.
Part II provides background on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as well as a survey of prior studies of decision-making on the court and explanations of those studies\u27 limitations.
Part III describes our methodology, including the novel dataset we built for the purpose of this study.
Part IV conducts a deep dive into separate opinion writing behavior on the Federal Circuit, confirming and rejecting various hypotheses about how the semi-specialized nature of the Federal Circuit dictates the court\u27s decision-making and its judges\u27 opinion writing.
Part V then focuses more specifically on dissenting opinions, testing whether political ideology or prior experience in a field is a meaningful predictor of voting behavior.
Part VI provides a brief foray into the role of collegiality. Because the Federal Circuit\u27s judges are all located in a single courthouse, we might see interpersonal relationships play a more important role than on the regional circuits-including in the controversial case of Judge Pauline Newman.
Part VII concludes by engaging other recent studies on judicial ideology in patent cases and sketching a preliminary theory of ideology on a (relatively) apolitical court
Eléonore Raoul: Early Years as Women\u27s Suffrage Advocate and Law Student (1916-1920)
No full texthttps://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/er_images/1001/thumbnail.jp