The Modern Cy Pres Doctrine

It is unusual, in the precise world of law, to find instances of where ‘near enough is good enough’. This book explores when this is possible, referring to property and monetary transfers, under the increasingly important and influential cy-près doctrine. The doctrine decrees that, when literal compliance is impossible or infeasible, the intention of a donor or testator should be carried out ‘as nearly as possible’. Over the past thirty years, this doctrine has marched into other legal territory where ‘as near as possible’ is also considered sufficient, such as in class actions litigation and under non-charitable trusts. Discussing and analyzing key developments across the Commonwealth jurisdictions and the USA, this book considers whether there is a new and overarching definition which can be attributed to the cy-près doctrine. It asks whether there is a doctrinal symmetry of analysis that truly renders it a body of ‘cy-près law’ in the modern context and whether the doctrine can be expected to play an even greater role in the future. This book is of interest to researchers and practitioners working in trusts and charity law, property law, contract law, and class actions jurisprudence.

The law of Equity, a latecomer to the field of private law theory, raises fundamental questions about the relationships between law and morality, the nature of rights, and the extent to which we are willing to compromise on the rule of law ideal to achieve social goals. In this volume, leading scholars come together to address these and other questions about underlying principles of Equity and its relationship to the common law: What relationships, if any, are there between the legal, philosophical, and moral senses of 'equity'? Does Equity form a second-order constraint on law? If so, is its operation at odds with the rule of law? Do the various theories of Equity require some kind of separation of law and equity-and, if they do, what kind of separation? The volume further sheds light on some of the most topical questions of jurisprudence that are embedded in the debate around 'fusion'. A noteworthy addition to the Philosophical Foundations series, this volume is an important contribution to an ongoing debate, and will be of value to students and scholars across the discipline.

Private Enforcement of Antitrust Law in the United States is a comprehensive Handbook, providing a detailed, step-by-step examination of the private enforcement process, as illuminated by many of the country's leading practitioners, experts, and scholars. Written primarily from the viewpoint of the complainant, the Handbook goes well beyond a detailed cataloguing of the substantive and procedural considerations associated with individual and class action antitrust lawsuits by private individuals and businesses. It is a collection of thoughtful essays that delves deeply into practical and strategic considerations attending the decision-making of private practitioners. This eminently readable and authoritative Handbook will prove to be an invaluable resource for anyone associated with the antitrust enterprise, including both inexperienced and seasoned practitioners, law professors and students, testifying and consulting economists, and government officials involved in overlapping public/private actions and remedies.

The key question facing European policy-makers is how to enable collective redress proceedings without producing the undesirable consequences that are associated with the U.S. class action model. How is it possible to find the balance between providing compensation for legitimate claims and preventing unmeritorious claims? If the system encourages the vast majority of claims to be settled, how can it avoid the ‘blackmail effect’, which means it will be cheaper for defendants to settle unmeritorious claims than to fight them? How is it possible to avoid excessive transactional costs? etc. In this report, it is considered that one of the of the important safeguards against the abuses of the U.S. class action system could be the active role of the court in collective redress litigation. Research is needed to see what concrete judicial powers are the most important in that respect. This report tries to achieve this challenge. The first part of the report consists in a comparative analysis of national rules and case law in six Member States (United Kingdom (England & Wales), Germany, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Sweden) to identify which powers of the court in a collective redress trial ensure fair proceedings for both parties and act as safeguards against potential abuses of the system. Cases have been selected to illustrate the issues that arise and some of the creative solutions that have been applied so far by the courts at each stage of a collective redress procedure. The second part of this report aims at looking ahead to ways in which recommendations for an optimal balanced framework for a European collective redress mechanism would be formulated. The result of the case analyses set out in this report attempts to demonstrate whether the European Union might be able to introduce an attractive approach towards collective redress which builds on previous knowledge by fusing different national approaches and provides benefits to consumers, competitors and the economy, without harmful risks.