Keywords
monitorship; legislation; regulation; disclosure; civil law; litigation
Abstract
Part I of this Article explains the failure of recent attempts by courts and legislators to constrain monitor behavior. Part II then argues that one reason for the lack of monitorship regulation lies in the reluctance of bar associations to oversee quasi-legal behavior. It then explains why reputation appears to be the primary factor reigning in monitor behavior today. Part III discusses implications of this Article’s findings. Specifically, it discusses concerns regarding the disclosure of information, the boundaries of the relationship between a monitor and other parties, and the ways a monitor’s identity might be utilized as a sanctioning mechanism. Monitors and those who utilize them confront these challenges every day without formal regulatory guidance.
Recommended Citation
Veronica Root,
Constraining Monitors,
85 Fordham L. Rev. 2227
(2017).
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol85/iss5/37
Included in
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Legislation Commons