Search results

The chapter is devoted to the problem of creating effective tools for attracting extra-budgetary sources and increasing the interest of contemporary Russian enterprises in implementing projects to repair past (accumulated) environmental damage.

The objective of the research is the regions of the Russian Federation (constituent entities of the Russian Federation) and the mechanisms for financing the projects in the field of accumulated damage repair being implemented at the state level. This is possible by financing the project with the participation of the company involved in the accumulated damage in the regions.

The chapter deals with the investigation of the basic concepts of the problems of accumulated damage and the identification of the main problems and the contradictions in attracting financing for the implementation of damage repair projects in the Russian law enforcement field. The analysis of indicators characterizing the dynamics of financing of such projects in the Russian regions and the methodology of selecting priority objects of accumulated damage for their financing at the federal level is also examined.

The research resulted in the authors’ conclusion that the problem of attracting extra-budgetary sources to repair accumulated damage is connected not only with the contradictions in the Russian environmental legislation, but also with the insufficient development of such institutions as public-private and municipal-private partnerships. The chapter contains proposals for the development of results-based tools using the mechanism of public-private partnership to repair the accumulated damage.

In effort to understand and reduce flood consequences more effectively and strategically, flood risk assessment has been a cornerstone of a long-term flood management. One component of flood risk assessment is the estimation of a range of possible damage to an area exposed to flooding, that is, the vulnerability curve. The vulnerability curve can be depicted by a stage–damage relationship. This study attempts to investigate how vulnerability to flooding can be quantitatively assessed using a micro-scale approach in Malaysia’s vulnerable areas. A residential area in Kota Bharu was chosen as the case study area. Depth–damage relationships from a multiple regression function of Department of Irrigation and Drainage Malaysia and spatial variability of residential buildings were used for the micro-scale assessment. Final estimates of expected annual damage were then calculated for each building type at 1-, 3- and 5-day flood durations. Results show that the methodology adopted is feasible to be applied for local-scale assessment flood risk assessment in Malaysia. The results also suggest that applying the methodology is possible when given wider availability of resources and information. This is particularly important for a robust end-to-end flood risk assessment for long-term effective flood management in Malaysia.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. is a challenge to conventional antitrust analysis. Conventional civil antitrust cases are decided by a preponderance of the evidence. This means that conduct challenged under the rule of reason is only condemned if the conduct resulted in more competitive harm in the actual world than a world without the alleged violation. Under conventional analysis, the intent of the parties also plays only a supporting role in determining whether the conduct was anticompetitive. A holder of a valid patent has a right to exclude others practicing the patented technology. And, the patent holder is not assumed to have market power because it expended resources in maintaining exclusionary rights. Actavis creates doubts about these propositions in circumstances beyond the “reverse” payment settlement of a patent suit that may have delayed an alleged infringer market entry. This chapter explores whether applying Actavis logic to antitrust litigation can result in condemnation of practices where there is little chance of an anticompetitive effect, where the patent holder likely has a valid and infringed patent, where there is little reason to believe that the patent holder has market power, and where only one party, or no parties, to an agreement have an anticompetitive intent. This chapter also investigates whether Actavis creates new problems with standing analysis, damages calculations, and the balancing of efficiencies against anticompetitive effects. Nevertheless, the lower courts have begun to extend the logic of Actavis. This is apparent in the condemnation of no-Authorized-generic settlements.

Offshoring is the process of using unaffiliated foreign companies or affiliated offshore entities (AOEs) to manufacture goods or perform services. The Big 4 public accounting firms offshore tax services (Houlder, 2007) and, more recently, have started to offshore audit tasks of their U.S.-based clients to AOEs located in India (Daugherty & Dickins, 2009). While the benefits of offshoring might be substantial, there are also costs associated with moving domestic work to foreign locations. One of these costs may be greater damage awards in lawsuits involving an audit failure where audit tasks were performed overseas as opposed to the United States. This study investigates that possibility by experimentally examining the effect of offshoring audit tasks requiring different levels of judgment on the amount of damages awarded by potential jurors as a result of an audit failure. The results show potential jurors awarded greater damages against the auditor when audit tasks were performed offshore than when they were performed in the United States. There was no effect of the level of judgment of the audit task on damages awarded. Since this study examines offshoring to only one location, India, results may not be generalizable to other offshore locations.

All of the above proposals are realities in Western Europe, and it is suggested that the adoption of such “reforms” would substantially reduce the transaction costs of providing compensation to deserving plaintiffs, improve the efficiency of the tort system, and provide manufacturers and service providers with greater predictability and “fairness” in potential tort damages in the United States.

In Chapter 10 in this volume, Comandé (2009) has proposed that American courts adapt “scheduling” for use by juries in awarding nonpecuniary damages in personal injury and wrongful death cases. Comandé suggests that American courts can develop schedules for awarding damages for nonpecuniary losses on the basis of the severity of the injury and the age of the injured party, based on data on prior awards by particular courts in specific jurisdictions. Comandé's proposal is shaped by the experiences of European jurisdictions that have developed scheduling for awarding nonpecuniary damages.

Punitive damages is a controversial topic in the legal profession and in the field of economics. This chapter explores the economics of punitive damages as they relates to corporate defendants. The economic difference between large corporations and other potential defendants, such as individuals or smaller closely held companies, causes the effects of a punitive award to be different. In some circumstances, these differences raise significant questions as to the appropriateness of punitive damages when imposed on large corporations.

A private right of action is not expressly mentioned in either §10(b) or Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and hence such a right must be implied. To justify a reasonable cause of action, the plaintiff must prove: (1) a material omission or misstatement; (2) made by the defendant with “scienter” (defined later); (3) which was the actual and proximate cause of injury to the plaintiff; (4) and was relied upon by the plaintiff.³ To reach the issue of damages, defendants’ liability in terms of satisfying the above four elements must be assumed.