Search results

This study examines how corporate litigation, both securities-related and not, is affected by hedge fund (HF) activism.

We use a difference-in-differences (DiD) method, along with propensity score matching and firm fixed effects and a comparison of HF and non-HF activists for identification.

We find that companies that are targeted by HFs face operation-related lawsuits, mainly from stakeholders or competitors. This effect does not seem to be caused by targets' higher tendency to settle the cases. Our evidence shows that HF activists increase firm value for the target firms that are prone to litigation.

Therefore, our evidence supports the idea that the higher operation litigation risks are unintended consequences of improving firm efficiency through cost savings or restructuring of target firms by the activists.

Regulated differently in modern constitutions, emergency rule is a case of awkward, and dilemmatic, legal fine-tuning of an ambivalent political move that leads the executive of a democratic regime to the verge of the constitutional system. For that reason, as an utmost situation, emergency rule becomes a testing field for the resilience of the constitutional order. It affects its own foundations, the basic rights, and thus the constitutional capability to make possible their fulfilment. It also serves to appraise the workings of democratic regimes and, accordingly, the type of legitimacy derived from their institutional performance. Furthermore, it provides a vantage point to watch the reactions of both their representatives and their publics. Focussed on the COVID-19 pandemic, this chapter compares the cases of Germany and Spain through their legal regulations of emergency rule and their governments’ responses. Having rather analogous emergency legislations, from 2020 through 2022, there have been significant differences in their decision-making patterns.

This chapter explores the nature of military law and IHL during the cold war period. It explores what treaties were completed, Additional Protocols I and II of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the ad hoc international tribunals of the 1990s and 2000s, and examines the ICJ’s ruling of the legality of nuclear weapons.