Litigation Settlement Research Articles

Two Settlement Pathways for Gross Violations of Human Rights Based on The Dignified Justice Theory

Settlement of gross violations of human rights might be pursued by choosing two “paths” provided. The first “path” is via the Human Rights Court. This route is also called litigation settlement. The second path is an alternative “path”, and has been coined as the out of the Human Rights Court settlement. The problem is the Constitutional Court states that the alternative “path” as referred to in the Explanation of Article 47 of the Law on Human Rights Courts is contrary to the Constitution. As a result of the issuance of the Constitutional Court decision, the alternative “path” seems to be in a state of limbo, and this presupposes a legal issue of the lack of clarity on the meaning of a formulation of the applicable statutory provisions. In this paper, it is argued that Article 47 of the Law on Human Rights Courts still recognizes two “paths” for solving or settling cases of gross violations of human rights in the Pancasila legal system. The research method used in this paper is normative legal research, often known as the pure legal research method. It examined the primary legal materials. The theory used for understanding and explaining the problem is the Dignified Justice theory, the Indonesian Jurisprudence.

The Simple Math of Royalties and Drug Competition During the 180-Day Generic Exclusivity Period

Abstract In drug patent litigation settlements, the plaintiff brand commonly licenses the defendant generic to sell before patent expiry. Some agreements require the generic to pay the brand royalties. Despite the superficial flow of payments, royalty terms may function as part of an anticompetitive “reverse payment” made to the generic in exchange for delayed entry. Typically, the brand launches its own authorized generic (AG) during the first-to-file generic’s 180-day exclusivity period so initially there are two generic competitors. A royalty structure that deters the brand’s AG launch reduces the number of entrants to one, conveying net value to the generic by allowing it to capture the entire generic market, potentially inducing it to delay its entry. Royalties usually have no place in a brand–generic agreement between rational actors. However, our simple model shows that when royalties are conditioned on the brand’s AG launch, a range of royalty rates exists that conveys net value to the generic by deterring the brand from rationally introducing an AG. Royalty terms that are conditioned on the brand’s AG launch thus raise a red flag that the agreement is a pay-for-delay. Although the numbers are small, publicly available materials on industry experience corroborate this conclusion.

The Role of the Government of RW 023, Teluk Pucung Village, North Bekasi Subdistrict, Bekasi City, in Overcoming Crimes Occurring in the Community Environment

Crime can occur anywhere and at any time, including in the residential environment. This is no exception for the Bekasi city community. According to the Bekasi City Central Statistics Agency, there is an increase in crime of 12% in 2021 and an increase of 75% in 2022. On this basis, an effective government role is needed to protect the community from crime in their environment, so this research was carried out with the aim of finding out the role of government in overcoming crimes that occur in society. This research was conducted in RW 023 Teluk Pucung Village, North Bekasi District, Bekasi City, West Java using qualitative descriptive methods. The data collection technique used was purposive sampling with a total of 10 people and consisted of elements of the community, RW, and local security forces. The data that has been obtained will be analyzed using nVivo and content analysis. The conclusion from this research is that crimes across the RW 023 area vary greatly, from theft to sexual disclosures. Based on what residents and the local government (RT and RW) said, if a crime is discovered, it will be handled in the RT area. If the RT area still needs to be finished, then the handling will continue to the RW area. In handling this, people generally use family mediation techniques, although this only closes the way for litigation settlement if there is common ground in mediation.

THE REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT OF INSURANCE LAW REFORM IN ORDER TO PURSUE THE LEGAL CERTAINTY FOR THE PEOPLE AND THE INSURANCE COMPANY

<p><em>The growth of insurance sector in Indonesia so far shows a significant development. The data from the Financial Services Authority (OJK) recorded that in 2020 there were 139 insurance companies had obtained the permits to run their business in Indonesia. <em>This number has been decreasing over the past five years due to the failure of several big insurance companies in managing the customer's insurance premium. For example, Bakrie Life and Bumi Asih Jaya Insurance. The research methods on this dissertation are normative with an empirical support to verify the basic research problem and to regulate an ideal formulation of legal protection for all insurance policyholders against the intentional mismanagement by the insurance companies. The results show that until now the rights of all insurance policyholders are still referring to the Commercial Law ( Trade Law Book ) and the Insurance Law. Both regulations do not specifically regulate the rights of insurance policyholders, especially those related to the investments or funds in the non-state-owned (non-BUMN) insurance companies with the priority of refunding if there is an intentional mismanagement or criminal acts committed by the director of the insurance company. The research concluded that the existing regulations do not provide a legal certainty for the insurance policyholders to get refunds for their deposit funds. This means, there is no legal protection for the insurance policyholders when the above mentioned crime occurs or when a violation occurs, or when there is a reinvestment failure. Therefore, it is recommended that the insurance law regulatory improvements be carried out, specifically those related to: </em><em>1) Non-litigation settlement mechanisms such as Arbitration (BANI), 2) Litigation settlement mechanisms including private law suit, force majeure, illegal act, bankruptcy suit against the investment managers, or criminal charges for embezzlement, fraud, or money laundering. In addition, it is necessary to have improvements of the technical provisions POJK No. 06/POJK.07/2022 concerning Consumer and Public Protection in the Financial Services Sector.</em></em></p><p><em> </em></p><p><em>Key Words: Legal Certainty; Customer Funds; The Failure of Reinvestment</em></p>

Do Traders Front-Run News? Evidence From Form 8-K Disclosures of Class Action Lawsuit Settlements

Using a novel and unique dataset of class action settlement announcements from Form 8-K disclosures as a proxy for private information, we tested whether traders front-run on the announcements and whether traders capture cumulative abnormal return (CAR) surrounding the disclosures. Although overall volume does rise, there is no statistically significant evidence of front-running Form 8-K disclosures and no CAR surrounding the disclosures. This study, nonetheless, contributes to the literature by providing further evidence from a new dataset of class action litigation settlements that there is no front-running of news. The findings contribute to the contrary – albeit less popular – collection of studies that show traders do not have access to private information upon which to exploit through front-running to capture CAR.

The Role of Judges’ Political Ideology in Facilitating Patent Litigation Settlement

The Role of Judges’ Political Ideology in Facilitating Patent Litigation Settlement

Enhancing Restorative Justice in Indonesia: Exploring Diversion Implementation for Effective Juvenile Delinquency Settlement

Indonesia’s juvenile delinquency is rapidly increasing in a high number every year. At the same time, restorative justice’s implementation through the diversion mechanism is ineffective. This circumstance indicates that efforts to enhance juvenile delinquency settlement are essential. Hence, this research elaborates on diversion challenges in settling cases involving juveniles in Indonesia. Moreover, it will analyse efforts to optimise diversion implementation in strengthening restorative justice in settling juvenile cases in Indonesia. This is normative research that uses a statutory approach and is described qualitatively. The research illustrates numerous obstacles in applying diversion during juvenile delinquency resolution in Indonesia. Amongst the difficulties are legal factors; law enforcer factors; factors of means or supporting facilities; societal factors, and cultural factors. These challenges incline the necessity to improve diversion applications in Indonesia’s juvenile delinquency. The effectiveness of diversion will contribute positively to the restorative justice system in Indonesia. Furthermore, optimising diversion is possible through reformulating regulation and prioritising prevention efforts to prevent juvenile delinquency from reaching litigation settlement.

‘원고는 소를 취하하고, 피고는 이에 동의한다’는 내용의 화해권고결정의 효력

This article raises questions about the judgment of the Supreme Court 2018 Da 230229 sentenced on July 29, 2021, which held that the decision to recommend a settlement that ‘the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit and the defendant agrees thereto’ has the same effect as the withdrawal of the lawsuit and reviews the essence of the decision of recommendation for settlement through the legislative intent and comparative legal analysis.
 Considering the legislative purpose of the decision of recommendation for settlement and the similar systems in Japan and Germany, the decision cannot be regarded as a special type of judgment.
 The purpose of the decision of recommendation for settlement is to settle disputes amicably between the parties by giving authority and credibility to the court's recommendation for reconciliation, and the basic framework is that it takes effect only when the parties do not file an objection, and its effect is the same as that of a settlement in litigation. The decision of recommendation for settlement is substantially the same as the court's presentation of a settlement clause or a compromise proposal. Therefore, the content of the decision of recommendation for settlement should be the same as that of a settlement in litigation.
 When the subject of litigation itself is a matter requiring a legal relationship to be formed through judgment, the parties cannot freely dispose of the subject, and, therefore, a decision of recommendation for settlement is not permitted. The requirements for litigation are matters related to public interests, not private interests, and should be investigated ex officio. They do not fall under matters that the parties can freely dispose of, so a decision of recommendation for settlement is also not permitted.
 An agreement between the parties only to terminate the lawsuit is only a withdrawal of the lawsuit and its consent, but it does not fall under the settlement of the lawsuit, and it should be treated as a withdrawal of the lawsuit according to the intention of the parties. The decision to recommend a settlement stating that ‘the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit and the defendant agrees thereto’ should also be regarded as illegal and ineffective.
 An arbitrary decision of recommendation for settlement which only aims to resolve disputes expeditiously must be avoided.

Conflict Resolution of Territorial Boundaries in Indonesia Through a Regulatory Approach

The Boundaries are important in maintaining national stability and security. Conflicts over territorial boundaries are common, both between countries and between provinces and regencies/cities. This is one of the important issues that have escaped the attention of the government so that various disputes arise between the community and the political elite at the border. The conflicts that occur are more caused by the triggering factor of boundary disputes, which in general have not been resolved due to the problem of resolving boundary lines due to different perceptions of the community and political elites. Boundary conflicts are usually very vulnerable if the contested area has excellent natural and economic resource potential. The purpose of this study is to describe the factors that cause conflict and the urgency of affirming boundaries and describe resolution efforts in efforts to resolve boundaries through regulation and non-regulation. The method used is a qualitative method with a descriptive type of approach through literature study. Based on the research results, it is understood that conflict resolution is used through two channels, namely: Non-litigation settlement of boundary conflicts and litigation settlement, Non-litigation is also called conflict resolution through government administration, in this case, mediated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Governor. While conflict resolution by litigation through judicial review and lawsuits filed by the parties to the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court. The role of the government in resolving regional border conflicts is as a facilitator in the context of investigating conflicted cases, as well as a mediator in negotiations in resolving boundary conflicts

The opioid industry document archive: New directions in research on corporate political strategy.

The opioid crisis in the United States has resulted in more than 500,000 deaths since 1999, and recent estimates suggest that attributable deaths could reach 842,000 by 2032. While heroin and synthetic products such as fentanyl now account for the majority of opioid overdoses, the prescription opioid crisis that emerged in the mid-1990s was the primary antecedent to the current situation. Recent settlements in litigation against opioid producers, suppliers and retailers has resulted in the release of almost 2.5 million previously confidential internal documents that have been made publicly accessible via the online Opioid Industry Documents Archive, a collaboration between the University of California, San Francisco and Johns Hopkins University. These corporate records provide critical insights into the operations and strategies of manufacturers and other actors in the opioid supply chain. This article describes the provenance of the opioid documents and their potential value as a research resource. It then outlines methodological approaches to their analysis, drawing on comparisons in conducting research using the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. The Opioid Industry Documents Archive is a new and important addition to existing industry document collections that enable scrutiny and analysis of the role of corporate actors in determining health outcomes. Beyond their immediate application to researching the corporate and regulatory foundations of the current opioid crisis, the opioid document collections will contribute to a greater understanding of the commercial determinants of public health by providing means to better locate the causes of public health crises, identify politically acceptable solutions to their resolution, and inform strategies for preventing future corporate-driven epidemics.

MODEL PENYELESAIAN SENGKETA EKONOMI SYARIAH DI BADAN ARBITRASE SYARIAH NASIONAL

The importance of functioning BASYARNAS as a form of non-litigation sharia economic dispute resolution because it has many advantages compared to litigation settlement. Even though there are many advantages, there are still few sharia economic or business actors who use these institutions as an alternative to dispute resolution. This is due to the lack of knowledge and understanding of sharia business actors regarding the forms of settlement at BASYARNAS, so education and literacy are needed for sharia business actors. This study aims to explain the procedure for resolving sharia economic disputes at BASYARNAS. The method used is a qualitative method, a normative juridical approach with a juridical descriptive analysis. The results of this study conclude that the form of sharia economic dispute resolution at BASYARNAS is based on Law no. 49 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, Law no. 21 of 2008 concerning Islamic Banking, Law no. 30 of 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution, and the 2005 BASYARNAS Procedure Regulations. The settlement procedure begins with a dispute resolution request to BASYARNAS followed by an examination process up to the reading of the decision by a sharia judge or arbiter

Are Market Prices for Patent Licenses Observable?

Despite the pervasiveness of patent licensing in many industries, there is a dearth of publicly available information on licensing transactions. Notably, information on price—i.e., the royalty agreed upon by licensor and licensee—is purposefully kept secret. We assess to what extent “market prices” on patent licenses are observable by assembling all publicly available information on royalty amounts associated with the licensing of 4G and 5G standard essential patents (SEPs). Our data come from a range of sources including court verdicts and litigation settlements, arbitration awards, public announcements, and published licensing agreements. We show that even for a highly visible technology such as mobile broadband, the available price points are few and far between. Moreover, any comparison of the available data points, let alone their aggregation, is extremely challenging due to largely unobservable heterogeneity in the terms and scope of the underlying licensing agreements. Our results point to a lack of transparency in the market for patent licensing that might adversely affect market participants and competition more broadly.

Corrigendum

Risk Management and Insurance ReviewEarly View CORRIGENDUMFree Access Corrigendum This article corrects the following: The 30th anniversary of hurricane Andrew: Evolution of the Florida homeowners insurance market Gabriel Carrillo, Dana Telljohann, Charles Nyce, Volume 25Issue 3Risk Management and Insurance Review pages: 239-270 First Published online: September 21, 2022 First published: 17 October 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12226AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat In the paper, “The 30th anniversary of hurricane Andrew: Evolution of the Florida homeowners insurance market,” in the section 2.5 Litigation and fraud, a sentence is revised from “According to the Florida OIR, $51 billion in litigation settlements was paid by the Florida insurance industry over the latest 10-year period and “71 percent of the $51 billion went to attorneys’ fees and public adjusters while only 8% went to claimants.” to “To wit, in 2019 alone, over $2.0 billion was spent on litigation settlements by the Florida insurance industry, of which 71% went to plaintiff attorney fees and public adjusters, 21% was spent to defend those cases, and only 8% went to claimants.” Footnote 11 is revised from “Florida Lawmakers to Reconvene May 23 to Address Property Insurance Crisis, JDSupra, 5/2/22 https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/florida-lawmakers-to-reconvene-may-23-4203530/” to “Florida: Lawmakers to Reconvene May 23 to Address Property Insurance Crisis, JDSupra, May 2, 2022. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/florida-lawmakers-to-reconvene-may-23-4203530/” The author apologizes for the error. REFERENCE Carrillo, G., Telljohann, D., & Nyce, C. (2022). The 30th anniversary of Hurricane Andrew: Evolution of the Florida homeowners insurance market. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 25, 239– 270. https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12222 Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

Implementation Double-Track System Criminal Sanctions and Rehabilitation Against Narcotic Abusers

Introduction: The application of sanctions is regulated in Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, which tends to impose criminal sanctions, does not have an impact, in fact there are more narcotics abusers. In accordance with the mandate of Law no. 35 of 2009 concerning narcotics, addicts and victims of narcotics abuse are entitled to rehabilitation, both medical rehabilitation and social rehabilitation. In general, addicts and victims of narcotics abuse have not been able to access rehabilitation services, especially addicts and victims of narcotics abuse who are in prisons or detention centers.Purposes of the Research: focus of the formulation in this research is How to Analyze the Meaning of Medical Rehabilitation Obligations for Narcotics Addicts?.Methods of the Research: The method used in this research is the normative juridical method and the law approach as well as the conceptual approach. They are in medical rehabilitation and/or social rehabilitation institutions.Results of the Research: Researchers suggest to the Government and the DPR to add explanations for narcotics addicts in Article 54 of Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics, by including the amount of medical rehabilitation financing provided to narcotics addicts in Law Number 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. Prior to the promulgation of the amount of medical rehabilitation financing, regarding the provision of medical rehabilitation for narcotics addicts it will be easier to implement, and for the public to increase participation in the prevention of narcotics addicts and accessibility to the settlement of litigation and non-litigation cases.

Starting off on the Wrong Foot: The Formation of Licensing Agreements in the Shadow of the Court

Prior research on contract design and interorganizational governance has emphasized how the grant of exclusive licenses help reduce transactional hazards between parties. While these licensing deals are typically negotiated and signed on their own volition, the literature is scant on the inclusion of exclusivity provisions when parties are forced to negotiate and come to an agreement. We fill this gap by comparing the inclusion of exclusivity in volitional licensing agreements and those that are signed as a result of settlement of patent litigation between parties. It is likely that negotiations between both parties for a licensing agreement post settlement happen in an environment of mistrust caused by their involvement in a patent lawsuit. We suggest that licensing agreements signed post settlement are less likely to include exclusivity provisions due to an increase in transactional hazards between the parties. Additionally, evidence from our data suggest that while exclusivity is used as a contractual safeguard to protect licensee investments in complementary assets especially when there is uncertainty in the technology, this relationship is adversely impacted in the deals signed post settlement. Finally, we also examine the inclusion of exclusivity provisions in settlement contracts signed between parties that relied on relational governance mechanisms such as past licensing relationships. Evidence on these comparisons between contracts are provided from licensing deals in the biopharmaceuticals industry.

PERLINDUNGAN HAK KONSUMEN TERHADAP MARAKNYA MONOPOLI BISNIS

In every company, consumer trust is a top priority. The Consumer Protection Law is one of the important things that must be known, so that in the future we will not be deceived or feel harmed by an item or thing that is purchased and consumed.
 To protect consumers from fraudulent competition, consumers need to get legal protection. Legal protection that can be provided are: preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. The purpose of this paper is to determine the form of legal protection for consumers due to unfair competition. The conclusion obtained is that the form of preventive legal protection has been established by the government, namely with the establishment of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection and forms of repressive legal protection, carried out by litigation and non-litigation. Litigation settlement is carried out in court and non-litigation with the National Consumer Protection Agency, Non-Governmental Consumer Protection Agency, and Consumer Dispute Settlement Agency.

Tech money in civil society: whose interests do digital rights organisations represent?

ABSTRACT This article explores philanthropic interactions between ‘Big Tech’ and digital rights civil society organizations (DRCSOs) to enhance understanding of the alignment and misalignment of interests between these groups. ‘Big Tech’ wields political influence by distributing cash to research and policy organizations. Academic research supporting ‘Big Tech’ business practices is marshalled to support their political lobbying efforts, while civil society policy work shapes the narrative what dimensions of these businesses should be regulated (or not). While academic work is typically presented as a cool analysis of the relevant issues, DRCSOs purport to represent the interests of individuals and groups negatively affected by those business practices. Through empirical tracking of direct financial flows, as well as an analysis of cash distributions via class action litigation settlements, we show that certain DRCSOs have long-term financial relationships with ‘Big Tech’ that trouble our understanding of the alignments or misalignments of their interests. Through that analysis, we question where and how civil society fits into automated and algorithmic cultural production and perpetuation, and the way that Big Tech uses and guards the economic capital generated through its dominance over ‘automated culture’.

Are Settlements in Patent Litigation Collusive? Evidence from Paragraph IV Challenges

The use of “pay-for-delay” settlements in patent litigation – in which a branded manufacturer and generic entrant settle a Paragraph IV patent challenge and agree to forestall entry – has come under considerable scrutiny in recent years. Critics argue that these settlements are collusive and lower consumer welfare by maintaining monopoly prices after patents should have expired, while proponents argue they reinforce incentives for innovation. We estimate the impact of settlements to Paragraph IV challenges on generic entry and evaluate the implications for drug prices and quantity. To address the potential endogeneity of Paragraph IV challenges and settlements we estimate the model using instrumental variables. Our instruments include standard measures of patent strength and a measure of settlement legality based on a split between several Circuit Courts of Appeal. We find that Paragraph IV challenges increase generic entry, lower drug prices and increase quantity, while settlements effectively reverse the effect. These effects persist over time, inflating price and depressing quantity for up to 5 years after the challenge. We also find that eliminating settlements would result in a relatively small reduction in research and development (R&D) expenditures.

Most-Favored Entry Clauses in Drug Patent Litigation Settlements as a Potential Reverse Payment

Most-Favored Entry Clauses in Drug Patent Litigation Settlements as a Potential Reverse Payment

PILIHAN SENGKETA EKONOMI SYARIAH: KONSEP MELALUI LITIGASI Dan NON LITIGASI

This study aims to reveal the comparative norms of sharia economic dispute resolution through litigation and non-litigation, both in terms of settlement time, costs, procedures, settlement institutions, enforcement of rights, and justice.research (Library Library Research Research) Thisuses documentation data collection techniques with data analysis, namely comparative analysis. The results showed that both litigation and non-litigation attempt to apply legal justice in resolving cases. While the differences exist in terms of the relatively long settlement time through litigation, the cost of cases through litigation is relatively expensive, procedures through formal litigation while informal non-litigation, there is only one litigation settlement institution, namely the court, while non-litigation has more variations in deliberation, consultation, mediation, conciliation or assessment of experts and arbitrator, litigation is the enforcement of rights, while non-litigation is not, and through litigation feels less justice, while non-litigation prioritizes the agreement of both parties.