bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
Getting Merger Guidelines Right
No full textThis paper is on the new Merger Guidelines. It makes several arguments. First, that the Guidelines should be understood as existing in a political equilibrium. Second, that the new structural presumption of the Merger Guidelines (HHI = 1,800) is too strict, and that an economically reasonable revision in the structural presumption would have increased rather than decreased the threshold. Whereas the new Guidelines lowers the threshold to HHI 1,800 from HHI 2,500, an economically reasonable revision would have increased the threshold to HHI 3,200. I justify this argument using a bare-bones model of Cournot competition. Third, it seems unlikely, as an empirical matter, that merger enforcement under the existing Guidelines is socially desirable. Fourth, that federal merger enforcement raises serious constitutional issues, originally discussed in 1904, and that it may be time now, in view of the new Guidelines, to return to these foundational constitutional questions
Fred Rivera
No full textFred Rivera is the Executive Vice President and General Counsel for the Seattle Mariners. Fred joined the Mariners in 2017 from the Perkins Coie law firm, where he served as the Seattle Office Managing Partner. In addition to overseeing the Mariners’ legal affairs, Fred is responsible for the team’s community impact and philanthropic efforts, government affairs, and real estate development. Fred previously served as a trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (1993-1998) and Vice President at Fannie Mae (2006-2008). Fred is on the Board of Directors of Olympia-based Heritage Financial Corp., and its subsidiary Heritage Bank, and OAC Services, Inc. He also serves on several non-profit and business organization boards, including the United Way of King County, Legal Foundation of Washington, Association of Washington Business, and Downtown Seattle Association. He is the past president of the Latina/o Bar Association of Washington and regional president of the Hispanic National Bar Association.https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/luminaries/1004/thumbnail.jp
State Sovereign Immunity and the New Purposivism
No full textSince the Constitution was first proposed, courts and commentators have debated the extent to which it alienated the States’ preexisting sovereign immunity from suit by individuals. During the ratification period, these debates focused on the language of the citizen-state diversity provisions of Article III. After the Supreme Court read these provisions to abrogate state sovereign immunity in Chisholm v. Georgia, Congress and the States adopted the Eleventh Amendment to prohibit this construction. The Court subsequently ruled that States enjoy sovereign immunity independent of the Eleventh Amendment, which neither conferred nor diminished it. In the late twentieth-century, Congress began enacting statutes seeking to override state sovereign immunity. In reviewing these acts, the Court established that Congress may abrogate immunity when exercising its powers to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, but not when exercising its Article I powers. This distinction is consistent with the original public meaning of the constitutional text understood in historical context. Recently, in a surprising turnabout, the Court abandoned this established paradigm by finding that the States agreed to an implied “structural waiver” of their sovereign immunity in the “plan of the Convention” whenever such immunity would “thwart” or “frustrate” the purpose underlying a congressional power that is “complete in itself.” The Court’s new purposive approach to state sovereign immunity is incompatible with the Constitution because it gives courts open-ended discretion to alter the federal-state balance established by the instrument. As Alexander Hamilton explained, because the Constitution “aims only at a partial union or consolidation,” “the whole tenor of the instrument” requires adherence to “the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor.” Under this rule, the “plan of the Convention”—properly understood— divested the States of their sovereign rights only when it did so clearly and expressly or by unavoidable implication. By relying on a strongly purposive methodology to find implied structural waivers of state sovereign immunity, the Court’s new approach disregards this fundamental rule and thus the Constitution itself
Common but Differentiated Constitutionalisms: Does ‘Environmental Constitutionalism’ Offer Realistic Policy Options for Improving UN Environmental Law and Governance? US and Latin American Perspectives
No full textEnvironmental law and governance have taken many different forms in the Americas in response to climate change mitigation. This contribution describes recent developments in the United States, Colombia, and Brazil, illustrating the divergent approaches to climate protection. The chapter highlights the common but differentiated ways in which the three countries in the Americas approach environment constitutionalism in the midst of the climate crisis. On one hand, Brazil and Colombia adopt a rights-based approach to tackle complex issues related to environmental law and governance in their context-specific responses to climate protection. In particular, the courts of Colombia and Brazil have been global pioneers in the recognition of environmental and even climate rights to galvanize political action. On the other, the United States uses a combination of market-based approaches and administrative enforcement of broad legislative principles to advance well-being, in the belief that markets, rather than political or judicial elites, are more likely to be responsive to both existing conditions and popular will. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which contains the most innovative and ambitious climate mitigation goals in the country’s history, exemplifies this approach. While the United States may provide a model of political and economic approaches to climate mitigation, courts in Latin America, as exemplified by Brazil and Colombia, are providing a model of progressive rights-based action. This contribution analyzes these national examples from a comparative perspective, assessing their promise for climate mitigation
Tatum v. Jack
No full textIn a non-payment proceeding before the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, Judge Karen May Bacdayan granted the landlord\u27s motion to vacate a stipulation of settlement entered into between the parties. The court found that although there was no clear evidence of mutual mistake at the time of the stipulation, there existed a material error that warranted vacating the agreement. Key legal points include the court\u27s discretionary power to relieve a party of an agreement if it can be shown that the mistake is substantial and that vacatur is necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. Additionally, the court noted the importance of efficiently resolving disputes while maintaining the integrity of the litigation process
Ladan Realty Corp. v. Kercy
No full textIn this holdover proceeding concerning a rent-stabilized premises, the landlord sought to recover possession based on the tenant\u27s alleged non-primary residence. The landlord served a Notice of Non-Renewal and Termination of Tenancy, terminating the tenancy due to the tenant\u27s purported absence from the premises. However, the court found the notice defective, as it contained speculative and generic allegations without sufficient detail or evidence to support the claim of non-primary residence. The court dismissed the proceeding, granting the tenant\u27s motion, and denied the landlord\u27s motion to vacate the ERAP stay, ruling in favor of the tenant. Key legal points include the requirement of a proper predicate notice in summary eviction proceedings and the necessity of factual specificity to support claims such as non-primary residence
Loyola Patent Program Info Session
No full texthttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1102/thumbnail.jp
Black Girls Youth Participatory Action Research & Pedagogies
No full textMore than a decade ago, as a group of anti-racist and feminist researchers, including one of the authors, set out to survey the landscape of the schooling experiences of Black girls, we encountered a pronounced knowledge desert that threatened research-informed policy interventions that served to protect Black girls. Most research at the time focused on the educational experiences of male, female, or Black students. There was hardly any readily available data on the school-based outcomes of Black girls as a specific group of students with a unique set of experiences. In Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced, & Underprotected (Crenshaw, Ocen, & Nanda, 2015), qualitative and quantitative research methods were utilized to examine the lived experiences of Black girls and other girls of color. Scholars and activists across disciplinary fields conducted in-depth interviews, surveys, focus groups, and town hall meetings to better comprehend Black girls\u27 lived realities. The Black Girls Matter (BGM) report served as an intervention that filled a knowledge gap, and it brought to light the unique experiences that Black girls and other girls of color experienced in their quest to seek a free and appropriate education
