The 2010–2011 Board of Editors is pleased to present Issue 1 of the 2011 Volume. First, Professor Tai-Heng Cheng examines the recent successions in Kosovo and Iran, testing the predictive and normative aspects of a policy-oriented approach, concluding that alternative configurations of statehood may replace Westphalian statehood to accomodate competing policies of self-determination and global stability.
Next, Professor Paul C. Giannelli examines the National Academy of Sciences landmark report on forensic science which makes clear that the Department of Justice had failed in its obligation to improve forensic science, and details the ways in which the Department of Justice failed–something the NAS report did not do.
Following this, Professors Bruce H. Kobayashi and Larry E. Ribstein examine jurisdictional competition to attract formations of closely held limited liability companies (LLCs) utilizing a new database to find evidence that large LLCs, like large corporations, tend to form in Delaware, and that the do so for many of the same reasons.
Next, Professor Suzanna Sherry analyzes foundational facts–facts which are judges’ generalized and invisible intuitions about how the world works–and argues that identifying these foundation facts, in turn, allows better understanding and evaluation of both the relevant doctrine and its underlying assumptions.
The Issue continues with and essay by Professor Richard A. Epstein which explores the evolving influence of Twombly and Iqbal in modern antitrust litigation. Professor Epstein argues that any propsed statutory repudiation of these cases is premature, and he criticizes the current rules governing “civil investigative demands” from the Antitrust Division as being far too intrusive relative to the parallel rules governing discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Professor Suja A. Thomas writes an essay analyzing the same key cases as Professor Epstein,Twombly and Iqbal, and argues, contrary to Professor Epstein, that the standard underTwombly and Iqbal is likely to be procedurally revolutionary, particularly in employment discrimination cases.