Who Wins in Settlement Negotiations?

2007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell B. Korobkin ◽  
Joseph W. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Settlement Negotiations

scholarly journals Trial and settlement negotiations between asymmetrically skilled parties

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Chopard ◽  
Thomas Cortade ◽  
Eric Langlais
Keyword(s):  
Settlement Negotiations

Prosecutorial Discretion in Mutual Fund Settlement Negotiations, 2003-7

2009 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric W Zitzewitz
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Mutual Fund ◽  
Market Timing ◽  
Career Concerns ◽  
Regulatory Capture ◽  
Prosecutorial Discretion ◽  
Negotiated Settlements ◽  
Settlement Negotiations ◽  
Late Trading

Abstract This paper examines the negotiated settlements of 20 market timing and late trading cases, comparing the restitution obtained for shareholders with an estimate of shareholder dilution. This restitution ratio varies from 0.04 to 5, or from 0.1 to 10 if penalties are included. While some of this variation is explained by differences in the defendants' conduct, controlling for this, settlement negotiations that involved New York as well as the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) resulted in restitution ratios that were higher by a factor of 5-10. An analysis that uses the firms' headquarters location and customers' state of residence as instruments for New York's involvement suggests that this difference is causal, and not the result of New York involving itself in cases likely to lead to large settlements. Given the much larger staff and institutional expertise of the SEC, it is likely that these differences in outcomes are due to differences in effective aggressiveness, not prosecutorial resources. Differences in aggressiveness are consistent with popular conceptions of the regulators' career concerns, as well as with theories of industry focus and regulatory capture.

scholarly journals Balancing rangatiratanga and kawanatanga: Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu’s Treaty settlement negotiations with the Crown

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Martin Fisher
Keyword(s):  
Self Determination ◽  
The Political ◽  
Limit Set ◽  
Legal Form ◽  
Governance Systems ◽  
Key Players ◽  
Settlement Negotiations ◽  
Historical Accounts ◽  
Modern Era ◽  
Crown Lands

<p>Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu’s negotiations with the Crown produced the first two major iwi-based agreements of the modern era of Treaty settlements in New Zealand/Aotearoa. While the existing historiography has previously addressed the general parameters of each agreement, and some key players have briefly written about their involvement in the process, an analysis of both negotiations through the lens of the iwi (tribe) pursuit of rangatiratanga (or self-determination) and the Crown’s defence of its sovereignty and kawanatanga (or governance) increases our understanding of these precedent-setting Treaty settlements. Māori rangatiratanga and Crown sovereignty and governance were not the only factors that drove all parties in their negotiations, but they represented the dominant motivating force in terms of reaching agreements on very difficult issues.  Through an investigation of Ngāi Tahu, Waikato-Tainui, Crown and public sources, this thesis identifies the balancing of iwi rangatiratanga and the Crown’s sovereignty and kawanatanga in four major areas of the process: the development of iwi governance systems post-settlement, the negotiation of the financial aspects of the settlement, the parameters surrounding the return of land, and the formulation of the historical accounts and Crown apologies. The political structures set by the Crown to govern the process influenced all aspects of the negotiation. Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu argued that a larger quantum would be necessary to achieve the finality and general financial certainty sought by the Crown, but were challenged most prominently by Treasury. Nonetheless both iwi were able to obtain significant concessions. The subsequent limit set on the total financial scope of each settlement also influenced the amount of land that was returned. In addition the Crown’s overall control of the process influenced the type of Crown lands that would be returned, and in Waikato-Tainui’s case, the legal form in which land was returned. The negotiations regarding the historical accounts and apologies that accompanied each settlement similarly were influenced by the limitations imposed by the Crown, in contrast to the specific details sought by Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui.  The Crown was able to strengthen its governance by achieving settlements with Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu. Both iwi also were able to enhance their own rangatiratanga by settling their claims, enhancing their political power and influence regionally and nationally. Ultimately Waikato-Tainui and Ngāi Tahu’s Treaty settlements simultaneously reinforced the Crown’s sovereignty and kawanatanga and energised Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui’s pursuit of rangatiratanga.</p>

Opioid firms face US criminal liability

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Relief ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Illegal Drugs ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Corporate Accountability ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Civil Lawsuits ◽  
Settlement Negotiations

Significance Prosecutors seek to expand the reach of a US statute previously applied only to dealers in illegal drugs, to attempt to establish corporate accountability for the crisis that has cost thousands of lives. Impacts These investigations will be independent of the civil liability companies face; parties will likely settle the myriad civil lawsuits. Uncertainty over how to value claims complicates settlement negotiations. Punishing opioids manufacturers and distributors could make firms risk-averse, thereby limiting patients’ access to pain relief.

Improving Citizen Participation in Environmental Decisionmaking: The Use of Transformative Mediator Techniques

1993 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
C P Ozawa
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Native American ◽  
Citizen Participation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Waste Incinerator ◽  
Policy Dialogue ◽  
Native American Tribes ◽  
Settlement Negotiations ◽  
Solid Waste Incinerator

Recent experiences in the United States suggest that mediators employ a number of techniques designed to resolve disputes over critical technical components of decisions. Some of these techniques, called ‘transformative mediator techniques’, both increase the knowledge base for decisions and enhance the abilities of resource-poor groups to protect and promote their interests. In this paper, elements of transformative and nontransformative mediator techniques are identified and discussed. Examples of mediator techniques are drawn from three cases: A regulatory negotiation to develop emission standards for wood stoves, a policy dialogue concerning a proposal to construct a solid-waste incinerator in New York City, and settlement negotiations in a fishery dispute involving three Native American tribes, the State of Michigan, and two federal agencies.

„Ich Kam, Sah und Explodierte“ – Eine Episode aus dem Leben Sammy Gronemanns

Naharaim ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 189-202
Author(s):  
Meron-Martin Piotrkowski
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Zionist Movement ◽  
Settlement Negotiations

Abstract This article focuses on a particular episode in Sammy Gronemann’s life that occurred in 1902 and is briefly described in his memoires, Erinnerungen. Gronemann was asked to travel to Mainz for a propaganda lecture on behalf of the Zionist Movement in which he caused an uproar. Earlier in the year, the Jewish-orthodox newspaper Der Israelit of Mainz had published a slanderous article on the Zionist bank, the Jewish Colonial Trust, for which it was sued by the Zionist leadership. In the midst of the trial against the paper and its editor-in-chief, Oskar Lehmann, efforts were made to bring the trial to a quick end by means of a settlement. During Gronemann’s talk in Mainz, he spotted Lehmann in the audience and entered into a tirade. He publicly insulted Lehmann, who angrily left the venue. This caused an uproar and jeopardized the leverage of the Zionists in the settlement negotiations and the trial’s speedy conclusion. This paper provides the background to the events, discusses its outcome, and puts the episode in its historical context.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document