18736 research outputs found
Sort by
USA Insider Trading Law: Its Unacceptable Framework and a Proposed Solution
No full textThis chapter provides an analysis of the unacceptable framework of insider trading law in the United States and proffers a proposed solution. First, key U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the insider trading area are examined, with discussion also of lower court case law that existed prior to these Supreme Court decisions. Second, the chapter focuses on measures that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken to limit the scope of these decisions in the Commission\u27s quest to implement a robust enforcement regimen in this setting. This discussion also addresses lower court case law and congressional action that impact the U.S. insider trading framework. The result of these measures is the presence of disparate, inconsistent, and unfair regulation. Third, the last part of the chapter recommends an alternative framework that, if adopted, would provide a far superior insider trading framework
A Comparative Time Series Analysis of the ARIMA and Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) Models
No full textSeveral new transformer-based time series models have been developed in the past five years and research has provided evidence of these models’ superior performance compared to classic statistical models such as ARIMA. While transformer-based models show impressive performance on baseline datasets, no research has been done on the robustness of these models on datasets with controlled modifications and in a replicable manner. In this paper, the Temporal Fusion Transformer (TFT) model was compared to the classical statistical model ARIMA on simulated data using multiple horizons. Data were simulated using a linear combination of exogenous variables; in total, 50 realizations of 52,704 observations were simulated. The comparison tests, which introduced controlled modifications, included 1) a baseline comparison on the simulated data, 2) simulated data with reduced noise, 3) simulated data with increased noise, 4) a reduction of training data, and 5) a nonlinear combination of the target variable. The TFT and ARIMA models were compared using mean squared error (MSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) on various horizons. Results showed that the ARIMA produced lower average error metrics than the TFT across all horizons and under all modified conditions
AI-Powered Compliance: Accelerating efficiency and decision-making for Compliance related inquiries.
No full textThis research examines the potential of an AI-powered chatbot to streamline compliance workflows by reducing the time and effort required to locate and interpret complex compliance documents. The prototype integrates a centralized MySQL-based document repository, a contextual document querying engine, and a Streamlit web interface, enabling employees to retrieve accurate, document-backed answers within seconds. The system supports both stored and user-uploaded documents, with features such as automated summarization and source citations to enhance transparency and trust. Manual evaluation demonstrated notable gains in efficiency and accuracy compared to traditional search methods, with strong potential to improve adherence to compliance policies. Future work will focus on scaling document coverage, implementing automated performance testing, and strengthening ethical safeguards, including privacy protections and explainability features
The Role of Parental Rights in Abortion and Gender-Affirming-Care Decisions for Minors
No full textThe American legal system presumes that children’s interests are best protected by their parents and, secondarily, by the state’s parens patriae authority. Yet this structure falters when parental authority and state power are infused with political and ideological agendas. This Essay examines how these dynamics have distorted decision-making authority in two contexts—minors’ access to abortion and gender-affirming medical care—and allowed children’s welfare and autonomy to be sacrificed to partisan aims. The law is inconsistent on the role of parental rights—typically empowering parents to grant or withhold consent to a minor’s abortion but categorically stripping them of the power to consent to gender-affirming care for a minor. This inconsistency exposes “parental rights” as a selectively invoked political tool rather than a stable legal principle. Moreover, even a consistent approach to parental rights and decision-making for minors would likely fail to account sufficiently for the unique, lifelong consequences of denying access to abortion or gender-affirming care.
Part I situates these departures within the broader legal framework governing conflicts among parents, children, and the state, illustrating how minors’ interests rarely prevail absent independent constitutional protection or statutory intervention. Part II explores how abortion and gender-affirming care laws have been shaped less by coherent doctrine than by partisan ideology, resulting in idiosyncratic approaches to these particular decisions with the potential for lasting harmful consequences. Part III argues that while fidelity to conventional principles would represent an improvement, at least with respect to gender-affirming care decisions, those principles may simply be inadequate to safeguard children’s autonomy in life-altering decisions. The Essay concludes by urging reconsideration of how the legal system conceptualizes minors’ self-determination, pro-posing that more attention be paid to how decisions might affect children’s well-being than to who has the right to make them
The Real Story of NEPA Litigation in Clean Energy Permitting
No full textEnvironmental protections and the processes of the administrative state are under attack. In recent years, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has drawn outsized criticism from across the political and legal spectrum as a major impediment to climate friendly infrastructure and the clean energy transition. NEPA enables private groups to challenge development through litigation. Critics are moving to strip public oversight over federal permitting based on claims that these private groups bring largely frivolous environmental claims to court, driving up costs for developers and delaying progress responding to climate change. But is this really true?
Drawing on an original dataset of over 2,000 cases involving challenges to federal environmental reviews from 2009–2023, this Article presents the largest study of federal permitting litigation and reveals novel descriptive and empirical dimensions to the scholarly literature on private enforcement of NEPA. This study adds new, important empirical details about clean energy litigation that is highly relevant to the NEPA reform debate. I find that critics’ claims distort the reality of NEPA litigation.
Although the threat of NEPA litigation may chill some development, the litigation itself is broadly useful in ensuring well-informed decision-making across the government. Contrary to popular narratives, litigation is dominant in projects involving extraction such as forestry and fossil fuels, but plays only a minimal, at best, role in clean energy development. This data suggests that calls for reforms that excise or minimize public participation are not likely to accelerate the clean energy transition but, paradoxically, will almost certainly accelerate greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change, increase environmental harm, and deepen economic and health disparities. This Article concludes by proposing a new path for permitting reform that would enhance rather than hobble democratic functioning and truly serve the public interest
