University of Arkansas at Little Rock
University of Arkansas at Little Rock: UALR Bowen Law RepositoryNot a member yet
1877 research outputs found
Sort by
Criminal Procedure—Technology in the Modern Era: The Implications of Carpenter v. United States and the Limits of the Third-Party Doctrine as to Cell Phone Data Gathered Through Real-Time Tracking, Stingrays, and Cell Tower Dumps
Get PDF
Administrative Law—The Wholesale Human: The Ineffectuality of Responsive Regulation to Advancements in Reproductive Biotechnology Post Roe v. Wade
Get PDF
Is Title VII a “Civility Code” Only for Union Activities?
Get PDFChanges to labor law by the National Labor Relations Board are nothing new; changes in Presidential administrations often result in changes to the law, based on differences in philosophy by new majorities of the Board toward the proper interpretation of the National Labor Relations Act. But in2020, the Board made a fundamental change to long-standing interpretations of the Act’s protections for union and other concerted activities, not based on the Act itself, but based on what it said were the mandates of the anti-discrimination laws for employers to prevent harassment and discrimination. The Board contended that the former context-driven standards prohibited employers from complying with the anti-discrimination laws, but this article demonstrates that the anti-discrimination laws do not require that the Act’s protection be stripped from all racially and sexually offensive conduct that occurs in the context of union and concerted activities. This article also demonstrates that the new standard adopted by the Board, focusing on employer motivation in disciplining employees, fails to recognize all of the purposes of the Act it-self. This article proposes a return to the Board’s traditional context-driven standards, which allowed the Board to decline to protect concerted activities based on their egregiousness, and discusses potential changes to those standards, or the interpretation of those standards, to allow employers to comply both with the dictates of the Act and the requirements of the anti-discrimination law
Doing the Right Thing, the Right Way, the First Time: Decision-Making in Public and Private Arenas Regarding the Use Of Service Animals
Get PDF
Constitutional Law—School Choice: The Landscape After Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Contemporary Political Polarization
Get PDFFinancial Innovation and Unforeseen Consequences: SPACS, SEC Lending, and Shorts
Get PDFAlthough publicly traded “special purpose acquisition companies” (SPAC) have been trading for decades, the effect of the unique shareholder rights found in SPAC shares should be fully studied and compared with the rights of publicly traded non-SPAC shares. Because of their differences, PAC shares will not necessarily behave in the same way as non-SPAC shares in certain situations. The short selling of SPAC shares offers a useful case study as well as lessons for regulators, investors, and short sellers about the unforeseen and unintended consequences of financial innovation in the other-wise understood corner of securities lending and short selling of securities.
This article argues that market participants and regulators must fully understand the impact of the unique characteristics of SPAC shares that differentiate these shares from non-SPAC shares.1The first part will discuss the nature of SPACs and the issuance of SPAC shares. It will then identify and discuss the unique characteristics of SPAC shares in comparison to non-SPAC shares. The second part will discuss the lending of SPAC shares and the potential consequences of the short sale of SPAC shares, focusing in particular on the right of a lender of SPAC shares to vote and redeem its SPAC shares in certain circumstances. The third part will discuss recommendations to SPAC lenders, words of caution to short sellers, and possible areas of additional study for SPAC shares by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)