Posts tagged Jordon Prince
U.S. and China Enter Into A Two Phased Agreement

The US and China are the two largest economies in the world and over the past year they have imposed billions of dollars’ worth of tariffs on each other’s goods. So far, the US has imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion of Chinese goods forcing the Chinese to retaliate with tariffs on more than $110 billion of US products. (BBC). This post provides an overview of the most recent activities in the trade war between the U.S. and China, and an analysis of any implications these new tariffs have for the US, Chinese, and Global Economy.

Read More
Notable Increase in Shareholder Activism in LTM 2018

Many believe 2018 was a record year for shareholder activism. Since 2017, the number of activist campaigns increased by 5.5%, with about 268 campaigns announced in total (Melissa Sawyer, Lauren S. Boehmke, and Nathanial R. Ludewig, Harvard Law Review). In 2018, a record amount of capital was deployed in new activist campaigns and an unprecedented number of investors engaged in activism, with the number of first-time activists roughly doubling the 2017 numbers. However, these statistics do not tell the whole story (Melissa Sawyer, Lauren S. Boehmke, and Nathanial R. Ludewig, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP). 

Read More
Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, Inc.: Plaintiff’s Claim of Suppressed Speech Fails to State a Claim on Which Relief Can be Granted.

In Freedom Watch, Inc. et al., v. Google, Inc. et al, No. 1:18-cv-02030, 2019 WL 1201549 (D.C. Cir. 2019), Freedom Watch, Inc., a non-profit public interest organization (“Freedom Watch”) and Laura Lommer, a social media user (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia against Google, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Twitter, Inc., and Apple, Inc. (collectively, the  “Defendants”) alleging that Defendants worked together to intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing and for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The court granted the motion, stating that the Plaintiffs have failed to tie their concerns to colorable legal claims.  

Read More