Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Stemming the Shadow Pandemic: Integrating Sociolegal Services in Contact Tracing and Beyond
No full textThe COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the challenges of complying with public health guidance to isolate or quarantine without access to adequate income, housing, food, and other resources. When people cannot safely isolate or quarantine during an outbreak of infectious disease, a critical public health strategy fails. This article proposes integrating sociolegal needs screening and services into contact tracing as a way to mitigate public health harms and pandemic-related health inequities
The Ethics and Laws of Medical Big Data
No full textThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted that leveraging medical big data can help to better predict and control outbreaks from the outset. However, there are still challenges to overcome in the 21st century to efficiently use medical big data, promote innovation and public health activities and adequately protect individuals’ privacy. The metaphor that property is a “bundle of sticks” applies equally to medical big data. Understanding medical big data in this way raises a number of questions, including: Who has the right to make money off its buying and selling, or is it inalienable? When does medical big data become sufficiently stripped of identifiers that the rights of an individual concerning the data disappear? How have different regimes such as the General Data Protection Regulation in Europe and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the US answered these questions differently? In this chapter, we will discuss three topics: (1) privacy and data sharing, (2) informed consent, and (3) ownership.https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/book-contributions/1006/thumbnail.jp
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLITICS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION\u27S IRAN POLICY
No full textAbstract: Donald Trump’s promise to lead an “America first” foreign policy captured the attention of both American and international legal scholars. This paper aims to join that debate by examining the international legal challenges of Trump administration’s policy towards Iran. It does so by examining two main approaches of the administration: the exercise of unilateral sanctions towards Iran and the negotiation strategy deployed by Donald Trump personally. In examining the former, the paper relies on doctrinal legal research. In examining the latter behavioral approach to international law and economics, I use a relatively novel approach borrowing insights from political psychology and behavioral economics to explain many of the high-risk choices that the Administration took over the course of events. I find that after the cancellation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the “Iran nuclear deal”), unilateralism—as one of the main characteristics of this policy—failed to coerce Iran into negotiating a new deal. Instead, the unilateral exercise of sanctions reduced the “weaponized interdependence” of the sanctions’ regime into a negotiation leverage. Despite being almost unchallengeable before a legal forum, the lack of wider support for the sanctions led to considerations of their evasion from the European Union and other international actors. The negotiation style coupled Trump’s calls for a new deal with bold threats of military might and failed to lead to reconsideration of Iran’s approach to regional security. By staying within the Iran nuclear deal, Iran managed to strengthen its immediate negotiation position. Ultimately, after two and a half years of such policy, both the United States and international actors have launched a number of multilateral initiatives that are to remedy the damage done by high-risk negotiation tactics deployed by the administration and then President Trump personally
Mergers, Acquisitions & Tender Offers: Law and Strategies - Corporate, Securities, Taxation, Antitrust, Cross Border (Second Edition)
No full textFrom the publisher:
Mergers, Acquisitions and Tender Offers provides you with battletested, real-world advice on the entire M&A process. Packed with best practices, planning tips, checklists, and sample documents, this treatise offers comprehensive coverage of all aspects of the deal, such as: Contract law (including drafting issues with M&A agreements and due diligence) Corporate law (including (1) fiduciary duty concepts, (2) voting rules, and (3) appraisal principles) SEC law (including (1) registration requirements for IPOs, (2) deal docs and principles for both private and public company M&A, including tender offers, and (3) rules governing SPACs) Federal income tax, financial accounting and valuation techniques Domestic and cross-border M&As (including leveraged buyouts, spinoffs, and in-bound and out-bound M&A) Ethical issues (including dual representation, success fees, and conflicts of interest)
Examples of the sample agreements that are included are: acquisition agreements • a confidentiality agreement and letter of intent • annotated IPO on Form S-1 • private offering memorandum • SEC disclosure documents for recent public company negotiated acquisitions • tender offer documents • required SEC reports • investment banker engagement letters • and recent M&A deal documents.https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/fac_books/1020/thumbnail.jp
Discretion and Disobedience in the Chinese Exclusion Era
No full textThis Article examines the use of prosecutorial discretion from its first recorded use in the nineteenth century to protect Chinese subject to deportation, following to its implication in modern day immigration policy. A foundational Supreme Court case, known as Fong Yue Ting, provides a historical precedent for the protection of a category of people as well as a deeper history of prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. This Article also sharpens the policy argument to protect political activists through prosecutorial discretion and forces consideration for how modern immigration policy should respond to historical exclusions and racialized laws. This Article centers its analysis of prosecutorial discretion and its use during the Chinese exclusion Era in the nineteenth century and three key theories explaining as to why government officials used it to limit deportations against Chinese migrants. The first theory of prosecutorial discretion is economic. Government officials and scholars have long pointed to government resources as a key reason for why the Executive Branch uses prosecutorial discretion to refrain from arresting, detaining, or deporting a noncitizen or groups of noncitizens because of limited government resources. A second theory driving prosecutorial discretion is humanitarian. Noncitizens with specific equities that include economic contributions to the United States, long term residence in the United States, service as a primary breadwinner or caregiver to an American family, or presence in the United States as a survivor of sexual assault are among the reasons the government has used to apply prosecutorial discretion to protect individuals or groups of people. A final reason prosecutorial discretion might persist is as a stop gap to anticipated future legislation. These rationales for prosecutorial discretion are well documented in domestic immigration history, but this Article is the first to trace these rationales to the Chinese Exclusion era and reveal what may be the greatest untold story about prosecutorial discretion in immigration law. As this Article shows, the story of prosecutorial discretion is informed by these rationales, but also steeped with the political power of the Chinese community, foreign relations between the United States and China, and a mass resistance to a facially radical law