13203 research outputs found
Sort by
The Real Estate Tract Index: a Framework for Individual Assessments of Real Estate Credits in Securitization Operations
No full textThe lack of comprehensive and accessible records in systems like that of the United States hampers the ability of credit rating agencies to individually assess the quality of each credit in complex securitized products backed by mortgage receivables. In the current practice, agencies rely on general market indicators to rate financial instruments, particularly Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs), rather than analyzing each underlying contract.
More transparent and reliable recordkeeping — featuring real property-based indexing —would greatly facilitate this individualized assessment, providing the clarity and accessibility needed for more accurate credit evaluations.
Recent legislation, such as Section 933 of the Dodd-Frank Act, has introduced a form of reckless liability for negligent credit ratings, particularly where agencies fail to comply with the “safe harbor” requirement of reasonably investigating the rated securities. The effectiveness of this provision could be significantly enhanced if American jurisdictions adopted a different form of indexing. By enabling granular, parcel-level analysis of underlying credits, such reforms could improve the transparency and accountability of credit ratings —thereby addressing one of the systemic weaknesses that contributed to the 2008 Financial Crisis.
As the securitization chain lenghten, information related to the original loans comprising securities tend to get difficult to obtain. A geographic index can serve as a means to retrieve both the characteristics of the mortgage contracts and the mortgagees in long securitization processes, providing the assessors with material data to properly ascertain the true level of risk that each credit actually presents, as well as the correlation among them.
A major reform effort in the 1970s proposed simplifying property transfers and records through a bill called USLTA (Uniform Simplification Land Transfer Act), aiming to reduce the need for title searches and insurance. But the proposals faced strong opposition from title insurers and real estate lawyers, had little political support, and struggled with the fact that property law is handled at the state level. As a result, the proposal was withdrawn by the Uniform Law Commission.
In the aftermath of the 2008 systemic crisis and its severe social and economic consequences, new arguments have emerged that may rekindle momentum for reform. Nonetheless, political traction for any renewed effort will depend on academic engagement capable of highlighting the importance of strengthening the U.S. real estate recording system. The central aim of this dissertation is to contribute to the revival of that conversation
2025 Academy of Law Alumni Fellows Induction Ceremony Program
Get PDFThe Academy of Law Alumni Fellows was established in 1985 to recognize alumni whose careers are defined by exceptional personal achievement and dedication to the highest standards of the profession.
Academy Fellows are part of an elite group that includes US senators, federal judges, successful business leaders, and distinguished practitioners. A committee of anonymous alumni selects each year’s Fellows from among many deserving candidates. To be named an Academy of Law Alumni Fellow is to receive the very highest honor that the Maurer School of Law can bestow.
This year, we are honored to recognize four alumni whose remarkable contributions to the Law School and the profession will last for generations to come: Linda Fariss, Agnes Siedlecki Peters, Earl Singleton, and James A. Strain.
We offer our sincere congratulations to our honorees
Is It Time to Revive the Privileges or Immunities Clause?
Get PDFIs it time to revive the privileges or immunities clause?
I argue it is. But in a distinct way from what other legal scholars have suggested. Today, two ideas dominate discussion of the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. First, the Supreme Court rendered it a nullity in the Slaughter-House Cases (1873). Second, any attempt to revive it, most prominently Justice Thomas\u27s recent concurrence in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), necessarily means an abandonment of modern rights now protected by Due Process or Equal Protection. The first, in essence, argues the Clause is already dead, while the second argues that reviving it necessarily means the death of existing rights. I offer a different theory. Instead of avoiding the Clause, we need to embrace it. The reason: we are at an inflection point in modern Constitutional law and, going forward, a reinvigorated Privileges or Immunities Clause offers the best way not only to preserve existing rights but also to accommodate future ones. Two big, related forces are in play. First, modern Due Process and Equal Protection have reached the point of what I term Doctrinal Exhaustion. It\u27s time to look elsewhere for new rights. Undoubtedly, both Clauses have been successful. So successful that their main themes - such as racial and gender equality, and modern due process - are permanently embedded in American culture. They\u27ve become meta-Constitutional law. Simultaneously, going forward, their doctrinal framework no longer can provide effective solutions for contemporary legal and social problems. They\u27ve run their course. Second, modern American culture is changing and, in its wake, requires a different, invigorated system of rights. We are in the middle of a paradigm shift. Together, these suggest an opening for a modern theory of rights based on a revival of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Even more, the emergence of the Equal Dignity model from Obergefell v. Hodges is both a symptom and a signal such a change is already underway
Jerome Hall Law Library expanding partnership with GPO to preserve government information
Get PDFThe Jerome Hall Law Library at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law is expanding its preservation of U.S. government documents in print, one of several dozen Federal Depository Libraries across the country stepping up to ensure public access to vital records of American history.
Of the more than 1,100 FDLs nationwide, only 63 serve as Preservation Stewards, a national program launched by the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) in 2016 to support the long-term preservation of federal government publications. The Jerome Hall Law Library is one of them.
“We were eager to contribute to preserving legacy print collections that continue to serve Law School faculty and students, the broader IU academic community, and researchers throughout the Midwest,” said Jennifer Morgan, the Library’s Government Information Librarian
Orenstein to receive 2026 John Henry Wigmore Award for Lifetime Achievement
No full textProfessor Aviva A. Orenstein, the Karen Lake Buttrey and Donald W. Buttrey Chair at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, has been named the recipient of the 2026 John Henry Wigmore Award for Lifetime Achievement.
The John Henry Wigmore Award, presented by the Evidence Section of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS), honors individuals whose careers have made exceptional contributions to the field of evidence law. Previous recipients include leading scholars in evidence whose work has shaped teaching, scholarship, and practice.
“The award is presented to evidence scholars who have made leading contributions to the understanding of the proof process, or to the administration and reform of the rules of evidence and the process of proof, or both. Professor Orenstein easily qualifies. We are delighted to recognize Professor Orenstein’s distinguished career as an exceptional scholar and a generous teacher and mentor.”
Many of Orenstein’s colleagues submitted nominations on her behalf. She “stands out as one of the field’s most influential and respected figures,” said one nominator
The Vicious Patent Cycle: Addressing the Current Conflict Facing Startup Valuation and Patent Risk Through Policy Change
Get PDFYoung, startup, and growth companies play an increasingly important role in driving innovation and economic growth, but they face distinct challenges when attempting to leverage valuable assets to secure funding and scale their ventures. The valuation of startup companies, especially those built around new technologies and corresponding intellectual property, presents a complex challenge. With limited financial history and uncertain futures, investors often turn to proxies like patents to ascribe potential value. In recent years, the practice of startups using patents to secure investment and higher valuations has become increasingly common. However, this growing reliance on patents raises important questions about the suitability of using patents as a proxy in the valuation process. Further, an overreliance on some inherent value of patents masks the corequisite risks and limitations of intellectual property protection schemes, creating a false sense of confidence. In particular, there is a potentially problematic trend of startups using patents primarily for valuation and signaling purposes, rather than to protect substantive invention rights. At stake is whether this practice has the potential to undermine the integrity of the patent system itself and enable the overvaluation of potentially useless intellectual property rights, bringing about negative consequences for startups, investors, and the broader innovation ecosystem. In a different way, the core problem is the common practice of using patents as a proxy for ascribing value to startups, which enables the systemic overvaluation of intellectual property rights with uncertain or questionable real-world viability. This practice ultimately affects startups, investors, and the broader innovation ecosystem by propagating distorted incentives, information gaps, speculative optimism, and misallocated resources over time