Print Archive
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.
Illinois Brick was intended to be a bright-line rule prohibiting indirect purchasers from recovering damages against an upstream antitrust violator under § 4 of the Clayton Act for overcharges passed-on by direct purchasers.
This Comment demonstrates the need in United States’ semiconductor policy for the United States to establish itself as a preferred IP litigation forum. The paper notes three obstacles to be solved in current semiconductor IP policy: IP Theft, Semiconductor Counterfeiting, and Balanced Licensing.
The role of corporations in American life has become the focus of intense public and scholarly debate. How do corporations influence political outcomes? What norms or laws should structure corporate political participation? And who should decide what political interventions corporations make?
In the last few years, publicly held for-profit companies have been called upon to take public positions on myriad issues unconnected to core business concerns. Demands for public statements may arise from customers, employees, shareholders (large and small), the media, and others.
Corporations have always been involved in politics, but today is different. They are taking public positions, either directly or indirectly, on contested political and social issues unrelated to their businesses. In contrast to the conventional wisdom, we argue that this practice, which we term “corporate political posturing,” is problematic.
Corporations are increasingly wading into social and political matters that are unrelated to their business operations. This Paper empirically investigates corporate participation in social debates through the corporate response to Dobbs, the Supreme Court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to abortion.
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court invalidated the longstanding ban on the expenditure of corporate funds in federal election campaigns. In so doing, the Court dismissed outright an argument that had long been the foundation for the restriction of corporate money in election campaigns—that, due to the “substantial aggregations of wealth amassed by the special advantages which go with the corporate form[,]” corporate money poses a distinct threat to the integrity of democracy.