UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
I Mua Kākou: A Response to Dean Dickerson’s Call to “Abolish Caste”, 5 Stetson L. Rev. Forum 1 (2022)
No full textIf the Metaverse is Built, Will Copyright Challenges Come?, 21 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 215 (2022)
Get PDFBlack and Barred: The Bar Examination\u27s History of Exclusivity and the Threat of Further Exclusion Posed by ABA Standard 316, 74 S.C. L. Rev. 179 (2022)
Get PDFIntroduction to Transactional Lawyering Practice
No full textThe book delves into various aspects of transactional practice, including essential skills like interviewing and negotiation, ethical considerations, challenges of remote work, community engagement, and relevant substantive law topics. It aims to equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to excel in transactional settings.https://repository.law.uic.edu/facbooks/1006/thumbnail.jp
June Medical Services L.L.C v. Russo: Analyzing the Negative Impact of Maintaining the Status Quo on Abortion, 55 UIC L. Rev. 120 (2022)
Get PDFMay the President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate and the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives Intervene in a Federal Lawsuit against the State to Defend a State Voting Provision?
No full textDividing the Plausible Sheep from the Meritless Goats: The Fate of Stock Drop Litigation, 29 Elder L.J. 393 (2022)
Get PDFThe Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) provides federal oversight over employee benefit plans, specifically employee stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”) in which participants\u27 and beneficiaries\u27 retirement savings are in the form of employer stock. It imposes stringent fiduciary duties, especially for individuals or entities that purchase, hold, and sell plan assets, including the duties of prudence, loyalty, and diversification of plan assets. In encouraging the formation of ESOPs, Congress exempts them from the fiduciary duty of diversification and the fiduciary duty of prudence to the extent it requires diversification. As the value of publicly traded employer stock held within an ESOP can fluctuate with the market, federal courts have grappled with the question as to whether ESOP fiduciaries can be held liable under ERISA, regarding its duty of prudence, for investing solely or primarily in employer stock when the statute and the terms of the ESOP provide that the primary purpose of the plan is to invest in employer stock. The Third Circuit in 1995 in the case of Moench v. Robertson afforded the ESOP fiduciary to the “presumption” at the pleading stage, that it satisfied ERISA\u27s fiduciary duties absent a showing of extraordinary changed circumstances that demonstrate investing in employer stock was no longer prudent. The majority of circuit courts adopted the Moench presumption in stock drop litigation, where plaintiffs sued the ESOP fiduciary for purchasing or for failing to sell employer stock that had dropped significantly in value. In 2014, the Supreme Court in the Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer decision negated the use of such a presumption. Instead, it set forth a two-part pleading requirement to be used in stock drop litigation in order to withstand a motion to dismiss: (1) in the case of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty of prudence based on publicly available information, the plaintiffs must allege “special circumstances” as to why the ESOP fiduciary should not relied on the stock\u27s market price as being reliable or (2) if instead the claim was based on non-public inside information, the plaintiffs must allege an alternative course of action, consistent with securities law, that a prudent ESOP fiduciary should have taken after it concluded that it would not have done more harm than good to the plan\u27s fund. In subsequent litigation, this two-part pleading standard has proven to be too high a hurdle for the plaintiffs\u27 bar. The 2018 case Jander v. Retirement Plans Committee of IBM, however, provided a ray of hope for the plaintiffs\u27 bar in surviving a motion of dismiss based on the fiduciary\u27s insider information. The plaintiffs survived a motion to dismiss by alleging in that a prudent fiduciary could not have concluded that an earlier disclosure of IBM\u27s “undisclosed troubles” in one of its businesses would do more harm than good, as the disclosure was inevitable and the decrease in the value of the employer stock would continue over time. Because most other circuits have rejected the use of this “inevitable” theory to satisfy the Dudenhoffer standard, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jander. The Supreme Court, however, declined to comment on the arguments raised by the defendants and the federal government in its amicus brief as the Second Circuit had not addressed them. Instead, it simply remanded the case back to the Second Circuit, which, in turn, affirmed its prior holding. Thus, the Supreme Court\u27s “more harm than good” Dudenhoeffer standard continues to be a major hurdle for plaintiffs in stock drop litigation. This Article traces the history of stock drop litigation and offers recommendations for ESOP fiduciaries to avoid future litigation
Strategies and Techniques for Integrating Diversity, Equity and Inclusion into the Core Law Curriculum: A Comprehensive Guide to DEI Pedagogy, Course Planning, and Classroom Practice
No full textThe book emphasizes diversity, equity, and inclusion learning outcomes and assessments to acknowledge a range of differences and embrace them in the classroom.https://repository.law.uic.edu/facbooks/1037/thumbnail.jp