bepress Legal Repository
Not a member yet
645042 research outputs found
Sort by
A Look Back in Time: Analyzing the Success and Value of the 2014 Amendments to Rule 2a-7 and Reporting on Form N-CR in Light of the March 2020 Market Events
No full textMoney market funds have frequently been a target of regulation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Perhaps the most expansive regulation came as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck.” The SEC’s misguided 2014 reforms exacerbated the inherent risks of money market funds, including the risk of runs and first mover advantage, particularly with the implementation of Form N-CR. Form N-CR requires a money market fund to publicly report when various events occur, including when a retail or government money market fund’s current net asset value per share deviates downward from its intended stable price per share by more than ¼ of 1 percent. This comment focuses on the success of reporting requirements on Form N-CR by examining the effect of the March 2020 market events on money market funds. Ultimately, this comment concludes that the reporting requirements on Form N-CR for downward deviations in net asset value did not successfully aid government and retail money market funds in handling the March 2020 market events and added little value to investors. This comment then suggests changes to Form N-CR that would make the public reporting more valuable to investors while continuing to mitigate risks of money market funds
Paul Pieczynski v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
No full textUSDC for the Middle District of Pennsylvani
The Repeal of Religious Accommodations – a Constitutional Analysis
No full textUnder modern Supreme Court jurisprudence, the First Amendment ordinarily imposes no heightened standard of review upon neutral laws of general applicability that coincidentally burden the free exercise of religion. To relieve or minimize this burden, however, lawmakers are generally free to promulgate exemptions from or accommodations to such laws for the benefit of religious adherents. Such exemptions and accommodations are common.
When a law is not neutral with respect to religion, or when the law is not generally applicable, then it will be subject to the exacting test of strict scrutiny to the extent that it burdens the free exercise of religion. Should the law fail this test, the constitution requires – at a minimum – an exemption from the law to protect those whose religious exercise are burdened by its application.
An undertheorized phenomenon in this area is the repeal of a religious accommodation that had been previously granted. Although such an accommodation may not have been constitutionally required ex ante, it is far from clear that its repeal can be freely executed ex post. For by its very terms any such repeal would typically appear to be non-neutral with respect to religion, thereby implicating the test of strict scrutiny.
This article addresses this lacuna in constitutional thought concluding that, unless a religious accommodation is repealed alongside all other applicable exemptions to the law in question, such a repeal would indeed be subject to the text of strict scrutiny and, consequently, most likely unconstitutional
Immunity Through Bankruptcy for the Sackler Family
No full textIn August 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked one of the largest public health settlements in history: that of Purdue Pharma, L.P., reached in bankruptcy court. The negotiated bankruptcy settlement approved by the court would give a golden parachute to the very people thought to have ignited the opioid crisis: the Sackler family. As the Supreme Court considers the propriety of immunity through bankruptcy, the case has raised fundamental questions about whether bankruptcy is a proper refuge from tort liability and whether law checks power or law serves power.
Of course, bankruptcy courts often limit liability against a distressed company, but here, the Sacklers did not themselves declare bankruptcy. Instead, they added about 600 billion in annual costs from the opioid crisis, by some estimates—and are allowed to keep any remaining profits. The bankruptcy court justified immunity on the grounds that the Sacklers’ money was protected in offshore accounts and trusts and therefore could not be reached through tort liability—all the better to have them participate voluntarily. In other words, the Sacklers laid the groundwork for their own immunity by sheltering the money they withdrew from Purdue.
We have doubts that a single court should have the enormous power of shielding the Sackler Family from all future civil liability for the opioid crisis, simply to enlarge a settlement. Public health litigation has the power to address root causes of public health crises by disincentivizing unscrupulous actors. Granting these actors immunity may insulate them from public criticism while undermining the important role of courts as an avenue of recourse. Upholding immunity for the Sackler family would lay the groundwork for future executives to ride a company into the ground, at the expense of public health, golden parachute ready and waiting
Should Georgia Bet on Sports?
No full textFollowing the Court’s decision in Murphy, Georgia legislators have repeatedly introduced bills to legalize sports betting. However, despite these efforts, the 2023 legislative sessions concluded without the passage of multiple bills aimed at achieving this goal. Nonetheless, with mounting pressure and support, it seems increasingly likely that Georgia voters will soon have the opportunity to amend the state’s constitution to legalize it. This Comment analyzes whether legalizing sports betting would be in Georgia’s best interest. Part II will provide a brief overview of PASPA, followed by an examination of why the Supreme Court of the United States held it to violate the anticommandeering doctrine. Additionally, it will delve into the repercussions of the post-Murphy betting boom. Part III will explore the role of daily fantasy sports in normalizing sports betting. Part IV will reflect on advertising legislation pertaining to a similarly addictive industry and discuss modern predatory advertising campaigns employed by sportsbooks. Finally, Part V will analyze the challenges associated with legalizing sports betting in Georgia, evaluating the pros and cons before concluding why Georgia should “bet on sports.