SelectedWorks @ Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Not a member yet
699 research outputs found
Sort by
Introduction, Perspectives On Mass Tort Litigation Symposium
No full textThis symposium approaches mass tort litigation from a variety of perspectives. First, a group of nationally renowned legal academics describes and discusses the theories underlying mass tort litigation. Then a panel of practitioners introduces several emerging issues in the practice of mass torts. Next, Pennsylvania-specific civil justice issues, including joint and several liability and venue, are debated. These reforms affect not only mass tort, but more traditional tort litigation as well. One of the original mass tort issues—asbestos—created the widespread problem of bankrupt defendants, and resolving the problem is the subject of the fourth panel. Finally, traditional rules of ethics are applied in the mass torts context
China\u27s Evidentiary and Procedural Reforms, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Harmonization of Civil and Common Law
No full textChina’s People’s Supreme Court has stated its commitment to reform its judicial system, and the linchpin of the reform effort is the Uniform Provisions of Evidence, which are in the process of becoming China’s first procedural and evidentiary code. Incongruously, China, a civil law country, has modeled the Uniform Provisions upon the United States’ Federal Rules of Evidence and incorporated into the Uniform Provisions principles of United States’ criminal and civil procedure. The parallels between the Uniform Provisions and the Federal Rules of Evidence are striking and the adoption of F.R.E. language extraordinary.After setting out the traits that distinguish civil law countries, including China, from common law countries, I discuss how the adoption of a common law code, although incongruous, serves China’s reform effort and may ameliorate many of the problems with China’s judicial system. I also discuss how the Uniform Provisions, while maintaining Federal Rules of Evidence language, will be read differently in the new institutional setting. In making this argument, I discuss the civilian “free evaluation” principle, the Chinese concept of “objective justice,” and the influences of Confucianism and the harmonious society on the application of the Uniform Provisions.The article also describes in detail the Uniform Provisions and compares them with their antecedents in the Federal Rules of Evidence.While China’s previous reform efforts have been disappointing, the article ends with the expectation that the seriousness of this reform effort combined with China’s re-emergence as a global power will create a much improved judicial system
The Uniform Provisions of Evidence: A Major Reform that Maintains China’s Judicial Traditions
No full textMastering the ISDA Collateral Documents
No full textAs the only accessible single volume guide to the ISDA Credit Support Annexes under English and US law, this revised and updated edition remains an invaluable resource for anyone negotiating these documents. Mastering the ISDA Collateral Documents is the essential introduction to collateral documentation. This thoroughly revised and updated edition provides informative and practical guidance and covers collateral management from an operational perspective. It focuses on the two main ISDA Credit Support Documents and provides a clear, concise explanation of their provisions and amendments commonly seen in the market
Argument Recap: Imputing Eligibility for Relief from Removal
No full textAt oral argument on January 18, the Court questioned the attorneys in Holder v. Gutierrez and Holder v. Sawyers about calculating relief from removal. At issue in these consolidated cases is whether a parent’s immigration status and residency in the United States may be imputed to a minor child to calculate eligibility for relief from removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) said no; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said yes
Opinion Analysis: Deferring To (Even More) Limited Relief from Removal
No full textIn a unanimous decision on Monday, the Court held that the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reasonably construed a statute to forbid the imputation of a parent’s U.S. residency and immigration status to a child to compute the child’s eligibility for relief from removal (deportation). The Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Holder v. Gutierrez, consolidated with Holder v. Sawyers
Administrative Procedure for the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction to the 2010 Model State Administrative Procedure Act
No full text
(Mis)use of State Law in Bankruptcy: The Hanging Paragraph Story
No full textThis article addresses the use of state law in bankruptcy in the context of the controversial “hanging paragraph” of the Bankruptcy Code, which was added to the Code by the 2005 amendments. The hanging paragraph appears to grant undersecured car lenders full payment in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, treatment that gives such lenders better treatment than other secured lenders. The provision is particularly controversial when applied to negative equity financing. Negative equity financing is provided by lenders when a car buyer offers a trade-in vehicle that is worth less than the outstanding loan that it secures. When a lender makes a negative equity loan, it is undersecured on the day the loan is made.Whether a negative equity loan is entitled to full payment under the hanging paragraph turns on the definition of “purchase money security interest,” a term that is used but not defined in the Bankruptcy Code. The majority of all courts that have addressed the issue, as well as all nine of the Circuit Courts of Appeal that have done so, considered the term to be defined by state law, relying on a 1979 Supreme Court case, Butner v. United States. In this Article, I explain why state law should not define the term purchase money security interest for hanging paragraph purposes.To do so, I propose a framework for analysis that is based on the difference between bankruptcy entry rights and bankruptcy exit rights to show that an analysis that relies only on Butner to determine the appropriate use of state law in bankruptcy is incomplete. This entry/exit framework requires a detailed examination of the package of rights inherent in any property interest in order to determine whether that right is one that bankruptcy policy should respect. I then explain that because a purchase money security interest in a consumer good (such as a car subject to the hanging paragraph) refers only to a bankruptcy exit right, it should be defined according to federal law, following another 1979 Supreme Court case, United States v. Kimbell Foods. I conclude by proposing a bankruptcy policy-based definition of purchase money security interest for hanging paragraph purposes