Commentators have long debated how to reform the controversial Rule 10b-5 class action without pausing to ask whether the game is worth the candle. Is private enforcement of Rule 10b-5 worth preserving, or might we be better off with exclusive public enforcement?By carefully explicating the relative advantages and disadvantages of private Rule 10b-5 enforcement versus exclusive public enforcement, this Article reveals a new and better way to remedy the shortcomings of the Rule 10b-5 class action. It proposes that policymakers adopt an “oversight approach” to securities litigation reform by, for example, granting the SEC the ability to screen which Rule 10b-5 class actions may be filed, and against whom.

To the extent that a state can detain terrorists pursuant to the law of war, how certain must the state be in distinguishing suspected terrorists from nonterrorists? This Article shows that the law of war can and should be interpreted or supplemented to account for the exceptional aspects of an indefinite conflict against a transnational terrorist organization by analogizing detention to military targeting and extrapolating from targeting rules.

This Essay examines the burgeoning psychological literature on happiness and hedonic adaptation (a person’s capacity to preserve or recapture her level of happiness by adjusting to changed circumstances), bringing this literature to bear on the probability of pretrial settlement in civil litigation. The existing economic and behavioral models of settlement are incomplete because they do not incorporate the effect of adaptation on the sum for which a plaintiff is willing to accept an offer. When an individual first suffers a serious injury, she will likely predict that the injury will greatly diminish her future happiness. However, during the time that it takes her case to reach trial, the aggrieved plaintiff is likely to adapt hedonically to her injury—even if that injury is permanent—and within two years will report levels of happiness far closer to her pre-injury state than she had expected. Consequently, the amount of money that the plaintiff believes will fairly compensate her for her injury—will “make her whole” in the typical parlance of tort damages—will decrease. The sum that the plaintiff is willing to accept in settlement will decline accordingly, and the chances of settlement will increase.

In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, the Supreme Court retired Conley v. Gibson’s longstanding, seminal interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and strong endorsement of notice pleading. In place of Conley-style notice pleading, the Court substituted a vague “plausibility standard” that has confounded the legal community since its inception. This Note approaches Twombly from the perspective of the twenty-seven states that have modeled their procedural systems after Conley and the Federal Rules, and considers whether these states’ courts should adopt plausibility pleading.

This Note explores Trinko’s implications for antitrust enforcement in the pharmaceutical industry which, though heavily regulated, lacks an industry regulator that polices competition. It focuses on product hopping, a strategy launched by manufacturers of brand name drugs to undermine competition from generic substitutes. This Note inquires into the real anticompetitive harm from product hopping through the lens of Trinko. It proposes that courts undertake the antitrust analysis with an eye toward the industry’s regulatory regime—particularly, state drug product selection (DPS) laws—and the legislative policy judgment it embodies, in addition to engaging such traditional antitrust concerns as promoting innovation and preserving free competition