Featured Articles From Our Most Recent Print Issue
Contemporary financial supervision depends on knowledge about risk. Threats to bank soundness and financial stability abound, but they present themselves in amorphous ways. How should supervisors assess their significance? This Article examines a process being employed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) to assess threats posed by climate change.
In this Article, we propose a new rule for determining the proper forum for insolvency proceedings. Currently, the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law)—promulgated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)—looks to a debtor’s center of main interest (COMI) to determine the proper forum for a foreign main insolvency proceeding. This rule is flawed.
This Article develops two branches of history towards understanding derivatives markets and their regulation. First, using a comprehensive database of derivatives products that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has authorized, this Article traces stages in the development of derivatives products.
This Article examines how monopoly power warps incentives to innovate within the largest tech companies across history.
Featured Articles From The Online Edition
View AllBehind the failed Kroger–Albertsons merger lies a story of coalitions and ambition. FTC v. Kroger offers a case study of how the state attorney general’s role has evolved from local law enforcement to national policymaking. In the federal case, state attorneys general divided along partisan lines in their efforts either to block the merger or to see it enforced. After tracing the development of the office in modern America, this essay argues that FTC v. Kroger captures the dual nature of the state attorney general as both guardian of the public interest and political actor. Ultimately, the case illustrates how the state attorney general now shapes nationally significant federal litigation through multistate coalitions that can elevate the attorney general to the national stage.
The now-dismissed case against Coinbase is a symptom of a dynamic regulatory environment where rules for cryptocurrency trading are uncertain. The hallmark uncertainty within the cryptocurrency industry creates a fertile ground for evaluating equitable estoppel claims, where companies are forced to rely on inconsistent messages and unsettled policy to their detriment.
Indeed, Coinbase raised an equitable estoppel defense in its case against the SEC. Coinbase argued that it relied on the SEC’s representations that Coinbase was not violating securities law. The facts of Coinbase’s case could lay the groundwork for future cases to push the traditionally strict boundaries of equitable estoppel against government entities.
The purpose of this comment is to evaluate the strength of Coinbase’s equitable estoppel claims. Given the case’s dismissal, equitable estoppel is no longer relevant to Coinbase. But by evaluating the strength of the doctrine against this case, future cryptocurrency firms may be able to use its lessons as a defense should the policies shift against cryptocurrency firms again.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has begun to significantly impact many sectors of the economy and everyday life. As generative AI models improve at unimaginable rates, AI will become continually integrated into our daily lives. This will undoubtedly involve integrating AI tools into the technology that millions of people use daily, including PCs, phones, digital watches, and televisions—technology that many people cannot live without. Indeed, some companies are already beginning to do so. Seems great, right? Maybe so, but only time will tell how effective the integration of AI into hardware will be.
The touchstone of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) new rule on climate-related disclosures, The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors (the “Rule”), is materiality. As Cyndy Posner pointed out, there are over 1,000 references to material or materiality in the Rule. Such an approach must have pleased those commentators who feared the Rule would result in public companies being burdened with providing costly disclosures of non-material information and investors being overwhelmed with information they do not need or want.