Search

This article describes the GameStop short squeeze of January 2021, which was driven by retail investors from the online Reddit forum r/WallStreetBets. The short squeeze resulted in unprecedented market volatility and significant losses for institutional investors like hedge funds, leading to controversial trading restrictions by brokerages like Robinhood. This case study uses the GameStop saga to delve into key legal and ethical issues pertinent to an undergraduate business law class, including market manipulation, regulatory oversight/compliance, and conflicts of interest. It also examines fiduciary duties and class action lawsuits. By ex ploring these aspects, the study highlights the event's educational value in demonstrating many real-life examples of business law concepts while underscoring the need for robust regulatory frameworks in an era shaped by social media and technological advances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Court appeal is an integral component of the constitutional right to judicial protection. This paper introduces ways to improve the institution of civil court costs through the prism of justice accessibility. The author studied the optimal mechanisms for paying state fees at civil court; the direct connection between the benefits for the payment of state duty, the principle of justice accessibility, and the right to judicial protection; grounds for granting benefits for the payment of state duty. The author finds it highly undesirable to increase the rates of state duty because this factor can affect the scope of guarantees for judicial protection. However, the current inflation creates prerequisites for an increase in the cost of civil trials for the state, which means expanding the criteria for benefits. A judicial practice analysis revealed no uniformity in the provision of benefits for the payment of state duty but identified the grounds for the application of certain preferential mechanisms. The author proposes to introduce additional guarantees for the right to legal protection, e.g., the institution of financing court costs by a third party, not involved in the case but with guarantees for reimbursement of their costs for financing the trial. The mechanism for investing court costs could be tested in group proceedings.

In practice, the ultimate outcome of many important discrimination cases, for example, the Wal-Mart, Nike and Goldman-Sachs equal pay cases, is determined at the stage when the plaintiffs request that the case be certified as a class action. The primary statistical issue at this time is whether the employment practice in question leads to a common pattern of outcomes disadvantaging most plaintiffs. However, there are no formal procedures or government guidelines for checking whether an employment practice results in a common pattern of disparity. This article proposes using the slightly modified likelihood ratio test and the one-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) test to examine data relevant to deciding whether this commonality requirement is satisfied. Data considered at the class certification stage from several actual cases are analyzed by the proposed procedures. The results often show that the employment practice at issue created a common pattern of disparity, however, based on the evidence presented to the courts, the class action requests were denied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper explores the transformative potential of class action lawsuits in redefining justice for insurance policyholders in Indonesia. Through an in-depth examination of the legal landscape and specific cases, the study delves into the mechanisms and implications of leveraging class actions as a means of seeking justice within the insurance sector. By analyzing notable instances, such as the class action lawsuit initiated by insurance policyholders of PT Asuransi Jiwasraya and PT Asuransi Jiwa Adisarana WanaArtha, the paper scrutinizes the impact of collective legal action in addressing grievances and restoring violated rights. The research also navigates the legal provisions surrounding class actions in Indonesia, shedding light on their relevance and effectiveness in the pursuit of justice for insurance policyholders. Ultimately, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on legal remedies within the insurance industry, offering insights into the potential of class action lawsuits as a powerful tool for policyholders to assert their rights and demand justice in the Indonesian legal context.

At the beginning of the 21st century, a reform of the judicial system was carried out, essentially aimed at increasing the number of lawyers and opening public participation. In this context, a new class action legislation was promulgated in the field of consumer law to prevent instances of commercial malpractice and as a mechanism to recover damages from professionals in cases involving large numbers of consumers. This article examines how and the extent to which the new class action system contributes to the expansion of the judicial function. It also examines the potential for wider acceptance of this type of legal action within Japanese society.

The study discusses certain rules of group litigation in the civil procedure in the context of the legal status of class members in procedural relations. Attention is paid to the rights and obligations of the person who applies to court with a request to protect the rights and legitimate interests of a group of members. Participants in a class action include the person conducting the case (plaintiff-representative) and group members who joined the collective claim. The comparative legal method and teleological interpretation allow to conclude that there are active procedural relations only between the court and the claimant-representative, which predetermines the possibility of performing administrative actions, proving and appealing judicial acts only by the plaintiff, but not by the other claimants. The extremely curtailed scope of powers of the group members is justified by their voluntary joining a class action lawsuit. Relations within a group of persons are substantive in nature; this allows to highlight the necessity of appropriate private material mechanisms to satisfy the interests of the majority of participants under the rules on decisions in meetings. In view of the possibility of consolidating in a class homogeneous but different in size substantive claims of the group members we believe it is essential to establish the majority criterion, regardless of the price of the claim of each member. The research also reveals the contradiction in legal regulation in the event of a refusal to certify a group of persons after the initiation of proceedings on a class action in civil, arbitration and administrative litigation, substantiates the inexpediency of leaving a class action without consideration, and the need to consider personal claims of group members and allocate relevant cases in a separate production, as provided for in the Arbitration (Commercial) Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is drawn to the gaps in the legal regulation of group proceedings in terms of establishing the amount and procedure for paying the state fee.

The notion of the "Revival of Public Rights" has always been a controversial topic in legal doctrines and judicial practice. Public rights and their instances on one side, and the concept of revival on the other, constitute the core of this divergence. This ambiguity has intensified with the emergence of new social developments, necessitating the anticipation of innovative methods to ensure public interest more prominently. The necessity to sue environmental violations, capital market misconduct, problems related to the quality of automobiles, and over the recent years calamities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic are among the factors that have posed discussions related to the revival of public rights and judicial methods to guarantee public benefit. While discussions on judicial guarantees of public interest in our legal system are of less enrichment, in legal systems of other countries, it has been extensively elaborated. Public interest law and the associated topics, such as public interest lawsuits, position, and rights admissible in these lawsuits, are closely linked to the concept of revival of public rights. This article, by employing a descriptive-analytical method and utilizing library data, along with interviews with most of provincial prosecutors and their practices, aims to remove ambiguities associated with the concept of public rights and its revival through comparative data analysis, with a focus on common law systems. Based on the findings of this research, public rights should be interpreted as rights without any limited beneficiaries, and retrieval, in terms of nature, signifies the concept of supervision and is equivalent to the non-criminal authorities of prosecutors.

Abstract Introduction Transvaginal mesh (mesh) surgeries have been used to treat stress urinary incontinence (incontinence) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (prolapse). In Australia, as in many other countries, the harms caused by mesh eventually prompted individual and collective attempts to achieve redress. The rise of mesh surgery as a procedure, the experience of mesh‐affected women and the formal inquiries and legal actions that followed all occurred in social, cultural and discursive contexts. One strategy to understand these contexts is to track how the mesh and key actors in the mesh stories have been portrayed in mass media sources. We conducted a media analysis of the most highly read Australian newspapers and online news media platforms, focusing on how mesh and the interaction of stakeholders in mesh stories were presented to the Australian public. Method We searched systematically in the top 10 most‐read print and online media outlets in Australia. We included all articles that mentioned mesh, from the date of first use of mesh in Australia to the date of our final search (1996–2021). Result After early scant media reporting focusing on the benefits of mesh procedures, major Australian medicolegal processes created a hook to shift reporting about mesh. The news media then played a significant role in redressing women's experienced epistemic injustice, including by amplifying previously ignored evidence of harm. This created an opportunity for previously unreported suffering to be revealed to powerful actors, in settings beyond the immediate control and epistemic authority of healthcare stakeholders, validating women's testimony and creating new hermeneutic resources for understanding mesh. Over time, media reports show healthcare stakeholders responding sympathetically to these new understandings in public discourse, contrasting with their statements in earlier media coverage. Conclusion We argue that mass media reporting, in synergy with medicolegal actions and the Australian Senate Inquiry, appears to have provided women with greater epistemic justice, giving their testimony privileged epistemic status such that it was considered by powerful actors. Although medical reporting is not recognised in the hierarchy of evidence embedded in the medical knowledge system, in this case, media reporting appears to have contributed to shaping medical knowledge in significant ways. Patient or Public Contribution We used publicly available data, print and online media outlets, for our analysis. Therefore, this manuscript does not contain the direct contribution of patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public.

The defense of collective rights, and the appropriate reparation of damages to victims is a recent development issue in the Colombian legal system. Although some legal provisions mentioned damages to an indeterminate group of people in cases of negligence, it was not until the 1991 Constitution that Colombia established the types of actions all individuals or groups can initiate to advocate for the integrity of their rights in the face of illegal actions or omissions by the State. There is currently no mechanism for groups to sue private entities efficiently that guarantees all individual and collective rights, akin to class actions. This scientific article delves into the multifaceted landscape of collective rights protection in Colombia, focusing specifically on the mechanisms and implications surrounding the deployment of group actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The defense of collective rights and the appropriate reparation of damages to victims is a recent development issue in the Colombian legal system. Although some legal provisions mentioned damages to an indeterminate group of people in cases of negligence, it was not until the 1991 Constitution that Colombia established the types of actions all individuals or groups can initiate to advocate for the integrity of their rights in the face of illegal actions or omissions by the State. There is currently no mechanism for groups to sue private entities efficiently that guarantees all individual and collective rights, akin to class actions. This scientific article delves into the multifaceted landscape of collective rights protection in Colombia, focusing specifically on the mechanisms and implications surrounding the deployment of group actions.

Copyright of International Journal of Legal Studies ( IJOLS ) is the property of International Institute of Innovation Science-Education-Development in Warsaw and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: Transvaginal mesh (mesh) surgeries have been used to treat stress urinary incontinence (incontinence) and/or pelvic organ prolapse (prolapse). In Australia, as in many other countries, the harms caused by mesh eventually prompted individual and collective attempts to achieve redress. The rise of mesh surgery as a procedure, the experience of mesh‐affected women and the formal inquiries and legal actions that followed all occurred in social, cultural and discursive contexts. One strategy to understand these contexts is to track how the mesh and key actors in the mesh stories have been portrayed in mass media sources. We conducted a media analysis of the most highly read Australian newspapers and online news media platforms, focusing on how mesh and the interaction of stakeholders in mesh stories were presented to the Australian public. Method: We searched systematically in the top 10 most‐read print and online media outlets in Australia. We included all articles that mentioned mesh, from the date of first use of mesh in Australia to the date of our final search (1996–2021). Result: After early scant media reporting focusing on the benefits of mesh procedures, major Australian medicolegal processes created a hook to shift reporting about mesh. The news media then played a significant role in redressing women's experienced epistemic injustice, including by amplifying previously ignored evidence of harm. This created an opportunity for previously unreported suffering to be revealed to powerful actors, in settings beyond the immediate control and epistemic authority of healthcare stakeholders, validating women's testimony and creating new hermeneutic resources for understanding mesh. Over time, media reports show healthcare stakeholders responding sympathetically to these new understandings in public discourse, contrasting with their statements in earlier media coverage. Conclusion: We argue that mass media reporting, in synergy with medicolegal actions and the Australian Senate Inquiry, appears to have provided women with greater epistemic justice, giving their testimony privileged epistemic status such that it was considered by powerful actors. Although medical reporting is not recognised in the hierarchy of evidence embedded in the medical knowledge system, in this case, media reporting appears to have contributed to shaping medical knowledge in significant ways. Patient or Public Contribution: We used publicly available data, print and online media outlets, for our analysis. Therefore, this manuscript does not contain the direct contribution of patients, service users, caregivers, people with lived experience or members of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brazil is a large exporter of commodities that supply global value chains. According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2019 commodity exports entailed 8.4 per cent of Brazilian Gross Domestic Product.1 Although commodities exportation is important for the Brazilian economy, their production or extraction often causes human rights harms and environmental damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Opinião Jurídica is the property of Revista Opiniao Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

At the beginning of the 21st century, a reform of the judicial system was carried out, essentially aimed at increasing the number of lawyers and opening public participation. In this context, a new class action legislation was promulgated in the led of consumer law to prevent instances of commercial malpractice and as a mechanism to recover damages from professionals in cases involving large numbers of consumers. This article examines how and the extent to which the new class action system contributes to the expansion of the judicial function. It also examines the potential for wider acceptance of this type of legal action within Japanese society [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Upon the Transposition of European Directive No. (UE) 2020/1828 of 25/11/2020, whose new rules will apply from 25/6/2023, each EU Member State will be required to have at least one collective action, responding to the limit Its minimum requirements, aimed at protecting the collective interests of consumers, The directive called it the representative action, can be bringing against any professional who breaches his obligations, by organizations he calls qualified entities, provided they are designated in advance by member states. And that representative action can be domestic, as it can be cross-border. However, the main weakness of the directive is that it sets unified and binding criteria for all Member States to designate qualified entities for the purpose of bringing cross-border representative actions, and In contrast leaves those countries free to set criteria for designating qualified entities for the the purpose of bringing national representative action, in a way that leads to a lack of coordination between Member States, and to increase the risk of forum shopping. Therefore, This study is content to shed light on this particular problem, and on the solutions that some propose to address it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Class actions appear as a mechanism for regulating markets and encouraging honest practices. In light of economic developments, civil law systems today focus on adopting lawsuits capable of protecting aggrieved persons and easing pressure on courts as well as remedying the shortcomings of some other types of group lawsuits, which are ineffective, as we may learn from previous cases. This article is based on civil law jurisdictions; it analyses and highlights various legal principles that impede the adoption and efficiency of class actions to show that they are not an unfit lawsuit but rather a hindered one. The article adopts a comparative approach to two different law systems to demonstrate how each system regulates class actions: French legislation as an example of a civil law system and American legislation as an example of a common law system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a recent decision rendered by Brazilian Supreme Court on the Extraordinary Appeal 1.101.937/SP, in which the Court ruled on the (in)constitutionality of article 16 of Law 7.347/1985. The aforementioned statute provided for a territorial limitation of the effects of decisions rendered in Civil Class Actions. In order to achieve the aimed objective, this article will review legal experts and scholars’ opinions on the matter, case law and fundamental institutes of Civil Procedural Law.

Background: Large sums of money have been awarded against manufacturers of midurethral slings (MUS) because of complaints of pain and other complications, even though pelvic pain is rarely seen at the 6–12 weeks review. Hypothesis and Aims: Pain/other posterior fornix symptoms (urge, frequency, nocturia, and abnormal emptying) may appear weeks or months after MUS surgery due to dislocation of already weakened uterosacral ligaments (USL), a consequence of diversion of pelvic forces from pubourethral ligaments strengthened by the sling. Methods: Review for prevalence, pathogenic pathway from damaged USLs to pain, OAB, emptying, and other late complications by reference to data from functional anatomy imaging, mechanical support of USLs (speculum test), and post‐USL surgical repair. Results: Pelvic pain and other pelvic symptoms frequently co‐exist pre‐operatively with SUI, but are not volunteered because patients complain of one main pelvic symptom, others being "under the surface" (Pescatori Iceberg). Late de novo occurrence of symptom complications beyond perioperative MUS surgery may occur: pain (5.7%), retention (5.4%), UTI (9.3%), and OAB (10.2%). Xray/ultrasound evidence of pelvic forces acting on USLs support the hypothesis of diversion of forces. Improvement of pain and urgency by the "speculum test" indicates USL causation, as do cure of pain and other pelvic symptoms by USL slings. Conclusions: Late‐occurring PFS symptoms are the fault of neither implant, nor surgeon, but more likely consequences of pelvic forces acting on USLs already weakened by childbirth/age. Bladder/bowel/pain symptoms need to be sought out preoperatively and discussed before MUS surgery. Brief Summary: Late MUS complications, OAB, pain, retention subject to class actions, may be caused by uterosacral dislocation from pre‐existing structural weakness, not surgeon or device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author of this contribution deals with specifics of consumer disputes in Austrian civil procedure law. He analyses special provisions that address consumers in dispute resolution and general procedural rules that do not specifically apply to consumers but have their major impact on consumers. He gives an overview on the caselaw of the Austrian Supreme Court in which the Court has introduced several ways to protect the interests of consumers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper at hand deals with collective procedural mechanism in the Czech Republic. Class action is nowadays considered one of the main procedural tools to protect consumers. Collective procedure in business-to-consumer disputes is thus on its rise in Europe. Yet, the Czech Republic belongs to few EU Member States where consumers still cannot rely on comprehensive regulation of collective action. The paper firstly provides for a brief introduction of existing possibilities that are governed by the Czech procedural law such as right of a consumer organisation to file for representative action on injunction relief or judge's discretion to use the consolidation of civil proceedings. Further, the article focuses on the question, whether it would be useful if the Czech consumers (or qualified entities on their behalf) could file for collective action on redress measure. The paper subsequently presents the main principles of the unsuccessful Proposal for Collective Proceedings Act, which was submitted by the former Government. Finally, the article elaborates on possible development in this matter, given a duty of the Czech legislator to implement Directive on representative actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This study aims analyze the KPPU's decision as the basis for class action in court in demanding compensation for violations of unfair business competition, and the juridical obstacles in examining group claims based on the KPPU's decision. This is normative legal research using statutory and case approach. The results shows that the KPPU's decision can be used as the basis for a class action lawsuit in court in the context of demanding compensation for consumer losses caused by violations of business competition as long as the KPPU's deliberations and decisions include preliminary evidence of public (consumer) loss and meet the general requirements for a class action lawsuit. The juridical obstacles really depend on the level of understanding of the judges and also the documents and / or case files from the KPPU as evidence of consideration of consumer losses. Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis putusan KPPU sebagai dasar gugatan kelompok (class action) di pengadilan dalam menuntut ganti rugi akibat pelanggaran persaingan usaha tidak sehat, serta hambatan yuridis dalam pemeriksaan gugatan perwakilan kelompok yang didasarkan pada putusan KPPU. Penelitian hukum normatif ini menggunakan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa putusan KPPU dapat dijadikan dasar gugatan class action di Pengadilan dalam rangka menuntut ganti rugi atas kerugian konsumen yang disebabkan oleh pelanggaran persaingan usaha sepanjang dalam pertimbangan dan putusan KPPU mencantumkan adanya bukti awal adanya kerugian masyarakat (konsumen secara luas) dan memenuhi persyaratan umum untuk dilakukan gugatan perwakilan (class action). Hambatan yuridis yang dialami pengadilan tentunya sangat bergantung pada tingkat pemahaman hakim dan juga dokumen dan/atau berkas perkara dari KPPU sebagai bukti adanya pertimbangan terhadap kerugian konsumen.

This article constitutes a continuation of the research conducted so far in the domain of collective consumer redress in the European Union. The aim of the article is to discuss the issue of various legal mechanisms functioning in the selected EU Member States that serve consumers as a means of collective redress. In the first part of this paper, it was presented that the models of consumer protection vary significantly in the individual Member States. After having scrutinized some terminological remarks regarding consumer law enforcement, the main analysis focuses on the legal solutions adopted in Belgium. In the second part of the discussion, the author presents relevant legal solutions adopted in the UK and the Netherlands. Specifically, the author discusses the various approaches to the issues fitting in the dichotomic scheme, that is, the so-called opt-out and opt-in mechanisms. Special consideration is devoted to the issue of admissibility of collective redress and legal standing to bring collective actions. The paper employs dogmatic and analytical methods for the process of interpretation of the normative material and the analysis of case law. The study uses the comparative perspective to identify solutions emerging from effective practices found in legal systems of the EU Member States. The findings emerging from the analysis show how significantly the Dutch and English systems of collective redress vary. The article also provides some tentative conclusions that would make it possible to decide which legal solutions operating with success in those jurisdictions could be adopted into Polish law.

Managing the Risk of Offshore Oil and Gas Accidents: The International Legal Dimension is a book from the Edward Elgar’s New Horizons in Environmental and Energy Law Series. It is structured around the assessment of domestic and regional legal concepts regarding safety, liability and compensation for harm, and is divided in three Parts containing topics consisting of one or several Chapters.

Litigation funding has become synonymous with class action litigation in Australia with third-party funders being a key source of financing. This article addresses the rise and regulation of litigation funding in Australia through three pathways: judicial oversight of litigation funding, government regulation of litigation funding and competition from lawyers. Initially, litigation funding was subject to minimal regulation in an effort to promote access to justice. However, concerns about the size of profits made by funders which in turn impacted Australian businesses and reduced the compensation available for group members saw the adoption of a more detailed and restrictive regulatory approach. Further regulation has been proposed and criticised for hampering funding of class actions. This article concludes with a middle or compromise position that recommends a base level of regulation and empowers the courts to act as a check on excessive fees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In April 2018, the European Commission introduced a long awaited Proposal for a Directive on represented actions, which aims to modernize the existing European collective redress system. The aim of this paper is to answer the question whether the solutions put forward in this Proposal will improve the landscape of collective redress in the EU. For this purpose, I analyse the existing model of collective consumer redress in the EU, as set forth by Directive 98/27/EC, Directive 2009/22/EC and Recommendation 2013/396/EU; I also evaluate it from the perspective of its functionality with special consideration of key problematic issues. Against this background, I present the legal provisions put forward in the Proposal for a Directive on representative actions. The comparison of both legal structures makes it possible to give an answer to the question whether the proposed legislation can remedy the existing problems of the collective redress system and, thus, to answer the question whether it will contribute to strengthening the mechanism for the protection of collective consumer interests in the EU.

Large-scale data applications are becoming an increasingly integral part of how both public and private sector organisations function. The transition towards a data-driven society means that processes within organisations will be organised structurally differently than they used to be and that decision-making will be based on profiles and algorithms more often than not. This change requires several adjustments to the legal regime, both to make the best possible use of the opportunities this change has to offer and to lay down safeguards against dangers and risks. To facilitate this process, a number of changes is needed to the current, individual-centred legal paradigm, such as laying down a protective regime for non-personal data, providing protection to public interests and societal harms and granting a bigger role for representative and collective actions and public interest litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A ground-breaking judgment of the Australian Federal Court regarding the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea in 2009, Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 7) (Sanda (No 7)),1 is one of the few Australian class actions to proceed to a favourable judgment for the claimants. It is also the first judgment against an Australian company for cross-border pollution loss suffered by foreign claimants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Shipin Kexue/ Food Science is the property of Food Science Editorial Department and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Many transnational corporations (TNCs) that conducted business in South Africa during apartheid had deemed it profitable and desirable, despite the country's systemic human rights violations against its majority black population. In the aftermath of the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre and 1976 student uprising, various United Nations and other international resolutions condemned TNCs for their incestuous relationship with apartheid South Africa and called for international sanctions against the regime. The demise of apartheid in 1994 brought about a new democratic, constitutional dispensation based on respect for human rights. However, attempts at holding TNCs liable for aiding and abetting the apartheid regime were fraught with obstacles and proved unsuccessful. Yet, the pursuit of strategic, class action litigation in areas as diverse as collusive conduct in bread manufacturing to occupational lung disease in South Africa's goldmining industry have proven to be more successful in developing legal remedies against corporate harm. Areas impacted are extended legal standing under the common law, development of new causes of action and generous application of contingence fees arrangement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Mukaddam v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd 2013 2 SA 254 (SCA), Nugent JA stated that, once the class is confined to claimants who choose positively to advance their claims and are required to come forward for that purpose, he can see no reason why they are not capable of doing so in their own names through joinder – they do not need a representative to do so on their behalf. The members who choose to opt in to the class action will thus be identifiable. If that is the case then, according Nugent JA, joinder may be the appropriate procedural device. A problem evidenced by this approach is accordingly that, by suggesting that joinder is the appropriate procedural device where all the claimants are identifiable, rather than a class action, the court essentially attacked the viability of the opt-in regime of class action litigation. The preferential treatment afforded by our courts to the opt-out class action regime is further reinforced by the finding of Nugent JA that the opt-in class action regime can be utilised only in exceptional circumstances. As exceptional circumstances had not been proved, he found that a class action was not the most appropriate way to pursue the claims. He accordingly suggested that joinder was a viable option to pursue the claims. The opt-in class action regime requires individual class members to take positive steps to participate in the class action. In other words, class members are required to come forward and opt into the class action, failing which they will not be bound by or benefit from the outcome of the litigation. Support for the opt-in regime is essentially premised on the belief that individuals who are unaware of the litigation should not be bound by its outcome. The opt-out class action regime, on the other hand, automatically binds members of the class to the class action and the outcome of the litigation unless the individual class members take steps to opt out of the class action. Support for the opt-out regime is essentially based on the view that the opting-in requirement could undermine one of the primary purposes of class action litigation, which is to facilitate access to justice. The Constitutional Court in Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd 2013 5 SA 89 (CC) held that Nugent JA was wrong to find that an applicant in an opt-in class action is required to show exceptional circumstances. However, the court did not provide reasons for its disagreement. The issue relating to exceptional circumstances in opt-in class actions was dealt with in two sentences. The Constitutional Court also failed to deal with the nature and status of the opt-in class action compared with opt-out class actions in South African law. The note will accordingly consider when, if at all, it is appropriate to use the opt-in class action regime compared to the opt-out class action regime.

The position regulating close of pleadings in South African law of civil procedure has for a long time been unchallenged. However, the court in Nkala v Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited 2016 5 SA 240 (GJ) developed the common law to allow for the transmissibility of claims for general damages to the deceased's estate even if pleadings have not reached the stage of litis contestatio. The argument is that while the need for the development for the common law is recognised, the minority opinion should be the preferred approach. The majority held that the common law should be developed to allow all claims for general damages to be transmissible to the deceased's estate even if the stage of litis contestatio has not been reached. This note posits that the points raised by the minority opinion are of sufficient magnitude to prevent the immediate wholesale development of the common law. Detailed legal argument specifically addressing the development of the common law as a whole in this context, as well as the knock-on effects of the same were not ventilated, and as such the majority judgment can be viewed as premature. The paper provides an analytical and critical view of the judgment.

Law is acknowledged as playing an important role in the growing field of disaster resilience. Still, a detailed inquiry into the possible relationships between law and disaster resilience remains largely absent from the discourse. This paper explores how legal thinking, approaches, and instruments can act as 'tools' in altering the nature and conditions of disaster risks. It looks at how state institutions can wield them and non‐state actors employ them to participate in processes of change. Moving beyond a resilience literature that has tended to focus on law in terms of statutes, regulations, and human rights, this paper examines the ways in which legal reasoning, procedure, and substantive law can be instrumentalised to resist shocks, provoke incremental adjustments, or even foment transformational shifts in underlying risk conditions. It concludes by suggesting that law can offer both a breadth of insights for reconceptualising how power influences resilience and a number of instruments for challenging these power structures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Chilena de Derecho is the property of Revista Chilena de Derecho and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article analyses the peculiarities of the regulation of Class Action institution in the civil proceedings of Lithuania and Poland. Due to its limited scope, this article investigates the civil proceedings in the first instance courts only. The authors draw a special focus on the comparative analysis and the analysis of the effectiveness of the procedure in the current regulation by investigating both the doctrine and the available limited case law. The subject of considerations are problems relating both to the admissibility of filing a class action, as well as the course of court proceedings in cases concerning group proceedings, with particular emphasis on their differences from other procedural structures in Poland and Lithuania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, it will be discussed how the EU Directive on Representative Actions for the Protection of the Collective Interests of Consumers will affect the East-Nordic countries. In this context, Finland and Sweden are compared. Special emphasis is placed on the current problems concerning class actions vis á vis access to justice and how the new EU Directive will possibly solve the experienced deficiencies. Additionally, the more general perspective on problems in access to justice will be studied from the class-action point of view. Thus, one of the research objectives of this paper is to evaluate whether the current scope of class actions at the national and EU levels is satisfactory and whether there is still space for improvement and additional development at both the EU and national levels.

The article analyzes the active legitimacy and effective judicial protection of the public action of unconstitutionality in Ecuador. The study showed that citizens and collectives had no real possibilities for their unconstitutionality claims to be accepted by the Constitutional Court. Based on quantitative and qualitative methods, the claims filed and the judgments issued between 2008 and 2018 were examined; information which allowed for the review of jurisprudential developments of popular action conceived as broad and without restrictions. When comparing the data with the contents of the jurisprudence, the results were incompatible, citizens were not able to effectuate the constitutional control in favour of their rights despite the fact that the sentences allude to the popular nature of the action. On the other hand, it was verified that the actions presented by companies and the State were effective, being favorable to their economic interests and public powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this article is to investigate potential future effects of both the upcoming EU and the Czech national compensatory litigation legislation in the hospitality and travel business implementing new instruments of collective and representative compensatory litigation models of consumers' protection. The assessment of vulnerability of the business sector and the analysis of the rational apathy factor in small claims in present text is utilized for the identification of new emerging risks especially in small claims aggregate litigation. The risk analysis is provided with regard to the introduction of collective compensatory proceedings implementing the opt-out model in combination with the liberal approach to the external litigation financing. Utilizing the foreign and historical experience the present text provides for the assessments of the potential risks for the hospitality and travel business with special regard to vulnerability to aggregate small claims opt-out litigation in the sector of services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article constitutes a continuation of the research conducted so far in the domain of collective consumer redress in the European Union. The aim of the article is to discuss the issue of various legal mechanisms functioning in the selected EU Member States that serve consumers as a means of collective redress. In the first part of this paper, it was presented that the models of consumer protection vary significantly in the individual Member States. After having scrutinized some terminological remarks regarding consumer law enforcement, the main analysis focuses on the legal solutions adopted in Belgium. In the second part of the discussion, the author presents relevant legal solutions adopted in the UK and the Netherlands. Specifically, the author discusses the various approaches to the issues fitting in the dichotomic scheme, that is, the so-called opt-out and opt-in mechanisms. Special consideration is devoted to the issue of admissibility of collective redress and legal standing to bring collective actions. The paper employs dogmatic and analytical methods for the process of interpretation of the normative material and the analysis of case law. The study uses the comparative perspective to identify solutions emerging from effective practices found in legal systems of the EU Member States. The findings emerging from the analysis show how significantly the Dutch and English systems of collective redress vary. The article also provides some tentative conclusions that would make it possible to decide which legal solutions operating with success in those jurisdictions could be adopted into Polish law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article attempts to outline the optimal implementation of collective redress by using a comparative approach. After exploring the weaknesses of individual actions, which should be avoided, this Article presents the main forms of collective redress that exist in the various states. In particular, these forms include: Group action, representative action, and group settlement. The comparison of the various legal orders demonstrates the existence of several important parameters that need to be evaluated in order to design appropriate legislation. As a result, this Article supports alignment with the American class action and proposes specific modifications in order to eliminate several disadvantages of the original model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper aims to study on the overview of civil procedural law in Thailand with emphasis on the recent amendment regarding to class action and legal execution. The civil procedural law in Thailand, known as Procedural Use of Civil and Commercial Codes Act 1937 was passed in 1938 as to formulate the trail, execution of judgment, and appeal in civil and commercial codes. The civil procedural law in Thailand became a vital legal rules governing a proper civil trial and judgments. This Thailand Civil Procedural Law was recently amended on the provisions of class action and the efficiency of the legal execution. It is argued that such amandment create vital impact to legal practices on civil procedurals in Thailand. The amendment helps to modernize the rules for class action and facilitates the process on legal execution in Thailand. Adopting juridical normative method with statute approach, this paper submitted that civil procedural law should be amended throughfuly and not only partialy to keep up with the rapid changes on civil and commercial cases. To achieve this, more amandments of Procedural Use of Civil and Commercial Codes Act 1937 need to be done.

The objective of this article is to study the linguistic adaptation that accompanies the introduction and modification of a type of lawsuit originating in another legal system: the case of class action. In the context of the study of the comparative neology of French, Polish and Czech, considered in particular from the angle of borrowing and its equivalents, it is interesting to explore the adoption and linguistic adaptation of a legal concept. The one selected for this study is the American class action, which has already been the subject of a linguistic analysis focusing on French in France and French-speaking countries, and in Spain and Italy. The present study therefore extends the research carried out so far to the cases of Czech and Polish while updating the data on French. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 2003 and 2016, Brazil carried out a World Bank-inspired "rule-of-law" reform that has failed to substantially increase access to justice. To buttress such a disheartening conclusion, this paper includes a case study of Brazil's biggest litigation ever, which centered on the losses that bank customers had incurred because of heterodox national economic plans implemented in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By showing that the system of binding precedents consolidated in the reform ended up favoring "repeat players" over "one-shotters" in this litigation, this paper seeks to explain how institutional reforms that fail to tackle deep inequalities may backfire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]