Professor Sahani Presents Works-in-Progress at Vanderbilt Law School and Seattle University School of Law
On July 9-12, Professor Sahani presented her latest work-in-progress, Reshaping Third-Party Funding, at the Ninth Annual Lutie Lytle Black Women Law Faculty Writing Workshop hosted by Vanderbilt Law School. This article challenges the traditional triangular representation of the third-party funding transaction between the funder, client, and attorney and proposes other transaction structures that would be better suited to addressing potential problems, such as conflicts of interest, evidentiary privileges, and the funder’s exercise of control over the case.
On July 15-18, Professor Sahani presented her forthcoming article, Judging Third-Party Funding, at the First Annual Civil Procedure Workshop, hosted by Seattle University School of Law. This article proposes revisions to and reinterpretations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, evidentiary privileges, and international arbitration procedures to address issues relating to third-party funding such as disclosures, evidentiary privileges, conflicts of interest, cost allocation, sanctions, and class actions. The full text of the current draft is available here. The article will be published in the UCLA Law Review in early 2016.
Washington and Lee Law professor Victoria Shannon Sahani recently contributed to the Kluwer Arbitration Blog published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Professor Sahani’s blog post, titled The Impact of Third-Party Funders on the Parties They Decline to Finance was published on July 6, 2015.
A review of Washington and Lee law professor Christopher Bruner’s book, Corporate Governance in the Common-Law World: The Political Foundations of Shareholder Power, has been published by the Cambridge Law Journal. The review was authored by Dr. Marc Moore, Reader in Corporate Law at the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law.
Professor Bruner’s book, published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press, examines the corporate governance powers possessed by shareholders in the U.S. and other common-law countries. Bruner finds, contrary to popular belief, that shareholders in the U.K. and other common-law jurisdictions are both more powerful and more central to the aims of the corporation than are shareholders in the U.S. Bruner’s theory is that relatively robust social welfare protections in countries like the U.K., Australia and Canada have freed up their corporate legal systems to focus more intently on shareholder interests without giving rise to “political backlash” – because other legal structures accommodate the interests of employees.
In his review, Dr. Moore concludes that Bruner’s “outstanding work represents a highly innovative and influential contribution” to the growing body of socio-political literature on corporate law. Moore elaborates:
[T]his book is a work of monumental significance and scholarly craft. It is impeccably researched, beautifully written, and its claims are both forceful and highly persuasive. It is an absolute must for anyone seeking to form a holistic understanding of how corporate law and governance relate to their broader social-institutional context, as well as an excellent primer on the key comparative features of the world’s principal common law systems. In writing this pioneering work, Bruner has undoubtedly earned the right to sit at the very top table of international corporate law scholarship. One can only hope that future research in the field will advance this fascinating line of enquiry yet further.
Professor Christopher Seaman’s New Work Published in the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal and featured in SSRN Top 10 Lists
Washington and Lee law professor Christopher Seaman’s article, Ongoing Royalties in Patent Cases After eBay: An Empirical Assessment and Proposed Framework, recently appeared in the symposium issue of volume 23 of the Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal. The Professor Seaman’s article is also featured on SSRN top ten lists in four different subject areas: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property: Empirical Studies, Innovation & Patent Law & Policy, and Innovation Policy Studies.
From the abstract:
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 288 (2006), significantly changed the remedial landscape for patent owners, holding that a permanent injunction would not automatically follow a finding that an asserted patent was infringed and not invalid. As a result, a substantial number of prevailing patentees have been denied the ability to exclude future acts of infringement. eBay’s impact is perhaps most acute for patent assertion entities (“PAEs”) — firms that own, license, and assert patents in litigation, but do not themselves directly practice the patented technology — who rarely can satisfy eBay’s four-factor test.
In eBay’s wake, the Federal Circuit has approved an alternative prospective remedy called an ongoing royalty. But despite lower courts’ increasing use of this remedy, numerous questions about the structure and methodology for determining an ongoing royalty remain unresolved. This Article addresses the issue of ongoing royalty awards from both an empirical and doctrinal perspective. First, it reports the results of an original empirical study regarding ongoing royalty awards by district courts since eBay. Second, it proposes a new framework for computing an ongoing royalty that requires consideration of actual or anticipated changes to the relevant product market, as well as potential future alternatives to the patented technology, in determining the amount of an ongoing royalty award.
Washington and Lee Law professor Victoria Shannon Sahani was recently featured by Oxford University Press on their Investment Claims homepage. Professor Sahani’s blog post, titled The Structural Challenge of Investment Arbitration Viewed through the Lens of Third-Party Funding was published on June 10, 2015.
In late April, Washington and Lee law professor Mark Drumbl gave a lecture at the University of Cologne entitled “Thinking Twice About Child Soldiers,” which addressed a number of arguments made in a CNN op/ed and also a blog post. In May, he taught a course on public international law held at Herstmonceaux Castle, in southern England near Hastings and traveled to the Czech Republic to give a public lecture on “Atrocity Then, Trials Now: The Value of Delayed Justice.” This talk, delivered at Masaryk University School of Law, examined the justifications for prosecuting 93 year-old Oskar Groening, who is currently on trial in Germany and who had served as the accountant and bookkeeper at Auschwitz in the 1940’s.
Finally, in June Drumbl gave a lecture to lawyers at the Department of Justice on evidentiary challenges in securing convictions under the US Child Soldiers Accountability Act, which gives US courts the ability to prosecute individuals who unlawfully recruit children under the age of fifteen into armed forces or armed groups anywhere in the world.
On Tuesday, June 9, Washington and Lee Law Professor Christopher Bruner spoke at the University of Hong Kong on his current book project examining the role of small jurisdictions in cross-border corporate and financial services, titled Market-Dominant Small Jurisdictions in a Globalizing Financial World (forthcoming, Oxford University Press). The seminar was sponsored by the Asian Institute of International Financial Law, a research center of UHK’s Faculty of Law, where Professor Bruner has pursued his research on Hong Kong’s financial center as a Visiting Fellow.