Suchergebnisse

This paper provides an overview of the legal status quo in the European Union relating to the binding effect, in follow-on competition law cases, of public enforcement decisions, as well as of some of the legal issues which are likely to be the subject of controversy in years to come, in this regard. It tackles decisions declaring antitrust infringements adopted by the European Commission and by national competition authorities, as well as commitment decisions and decisions declaring infringements of merger control and State aid rules. It discusses the material, subjective and temporal scope of the binding effect. It also tackles other issues, such as the obligations of national courts relating to non-infringement decisions and ongoing investigations, and the issue of negative declarations. Finally, it looks into the arguments which may be put forward by litigants before national courts to avoid or circumvent the binding effect of public enforcement decisions. It is argued that the case-law already provides answers to many of the issues which are likely to be raised, which one may arrive at through a systematic and coherent interpretation of the general principles of EU Law, as clarified by the Court.

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Chapter 1. The United States Constitution and Federal Police Power -- Chapter 2. Federal Law Enforcement Takes Root in America (1700s-1850s) -- Chapter 3. Go West, Young Man (1860-1920s) -- Chapter 4. Hoover's G-men Come of Age -- Chapter 5. Overshadowed but Not Forgotten (Other Treasury and Justice Agencies) -- Chapter 6. The Inspectors General (and the Battle Against Fraud, Waste, and Abuse) -- Chapter 7. And Then There Were 100 (The Rest of the Federal Law Enforcement Community) -- Chapter 8. Public Policy, Homeland Security, and the Future of Federal Law Enforcement -- Appendix A: Chapters of the Federal Criminal Code -- Appendix B: Majority and Dissenting Opinions Containing Principle Arguments for and Against Broad Federal Police Power from the Landmark Case of U.S. v. Lopez (1995) -- Appendix C: Partial List of Federal Law Enforcement Agencies and Types of Officers They Employ -- Appendix D: Table of Contents of the USA PATRIOT Act -- Appendix E: Selected Events in the Chronology of Federal Law Enforcement -- Notes -- Selected Bibliography -- Index -- About the Author.

For the past six and half years a great deal of attention has been devoted to the reform of South African company law. The reform process commenced in September 2003, when the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) initiated a reform programme that included a review of existing securities regulation and, of corporate structures and practices in the area of corporate governance. Subsequently, in March 2004 (and updated in June 2004) the DTI published a policy document on corporate law reform entitled 'South African Company Law for the 21st Century: Guidelines for Corporate Law Reform'. This policy paper explained that company law in South Africa would be reviewed and modernised. The objectives of the reform process were to align it with international trends and to accommodate the economic and legislative changes that have taken place in South Africa since the advent of democracy in 1994. The policy paper also explained that this reform process would occur in two stages. Firstly, urgent interim changes would be brought by the Corporate Law Amendment Act No 24 of 2006. The Act provided for, amongst others, assistance to acquire shares and greater protection of minority shareholders in respect of takeovers .The Act came into effect on 14 December 2007. Secondly, the new Companies Act will repeal and replace the entire Companies Act No 61 of 1973, when it becomes operational.

Misuse of users' personally identifiable information is persistent and pervasive. This Article addresses two questions: why is information misuse so common and so severe and how could domestic law change to make it less so? I use a simple model to illustrate that companies externalize information misuse costs onto users, which has two related but distinct effects: chronic underinvestment in information security and excessive retention of user data. I then seize on this observation to propose a specific legal vehicle at the heart of this Article—a private enforcement remedy. This private enforcement remedy has four essential features. First, the remedy must be created under state law. State law provides a viable alternative when federal courts have used the constitutional standing doctrine to express overt hostility to privacy harms. Second, the law should impose a fiduciary duty on entities that collect or retain users' information. Structuring the remedy this way insulates it from attack by a weaponized First Amendment. Third, breach of an information fiduciary's duty should be a strict liability tort. The arguments for strict liability in products liability cases apply with even greater force to informational harms. Fourth, the statute that creates this private enforcement remedy should prescribe a schedule that begins with nominal damages and attorney's fees for strict liability, and it should increase monetary penalties with a defendant's culpability. The remedy's central purpose is to reshape incentives, so the damages schedule should not be unduly punitive or effect a windfall for plaintiffs' attorneys.