13203 research outputs found
Sort by
Bovell, Furton, Haydel, Stroud to receive Distinguished Service Awards in September
Get PDFFour alumni of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law will be presented with Distinguished Service Awards this September in Bloomington.
Dino Bovell, Matt Furton, Augie Haydel, and Terrance Stroud will be honored September 13 during a meeting of the school’s Alumni Board and before reunions for the classes of 1964, 1974, 1999, and 2014.
The Distinguished Service Award was established in 1997 to recognize graduates of Law School who have distinguished themselves in service to their communities and the school in ways far exceeding traditional business, professional, and civic duties.
Through their hard work, passion, and accomplishments, these alumni define Indiana Law’s ideals for community service and serve as accomplished role models for our Law School and the greater community
Deals in the Heartland: Renewable Energy Projects, Local Resistance, and How Law Can Help
Get PDFThis Article offers proposals for better engagements, relationships, and deals with local communities contemplating wind farms. Because the rapid expansion of wind energy to date has exhausted the first-mover rural communities, the promise of wind energy depends on reluctant rural communities that may require the legal, relational, and policy innovations proposed herein if they are to grant their consent to future wind farms and participate in the renewable energy transformation. The proposals herein are the result of empirical research exploring how occupants of rural spaces have reacted to wind developer’s strategies in their communities and how local communities have employed legal mechanisms to welcome—or, more often, reject— wind farms in their home counties. While the field work informing this Article was based in Indiana, our findings have broad applicability
Abortion and Affirmative Action: The Fragility of Supreme Court Political Decision-Making
Get PDFThis Article shows, on the basis of new evidence, that the canonical case of Marbury v. Madison has been grossly misinterpreted and that as a result of the misinterpretation we cannot understand what is wrong with contemporary cases such as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
The Article will proceed as follows. Because Marbury cannot be properly understood without understanding the eighteenth-century background against which it was decided, Part I will examine legal practices in colonial and post-Revolutionary America, focusing on cases in which judicial review emerged in the 1760s—cases about the constitutionality of Parliament’s 1765 Stamp Act. It will begin with a portrayal of mid-century practices that were a prerequisite to this emergence of judicial review. Part II will discuss Marbury itself and its companion case, Stuart v. Laird. Part III will compare political decisions in the past that have been overturned with those that have endured in order to formulate a theory about fragility. Part IV will turn to the political nature of the two recent decisions. Part V will inquire, in light of the theory from Part III, into the likelihood that the recent decisions will endure
Remembering Robert H. McKinney
Get PDFThe Maurer School of Law is mourning the passing of its graduate Robert H. McKinney, a visionary attorney, businessman, civic leader, and philanthropist, who died over the weekend at his home in Michigan. He was 98.
McKinney enrolled at the IU School of Law in Indianapolis after his World War II duties, but was recalled to active duty during the Korean War. McKinney transferred to IU’s law school in Bloomington, where he graduated in 1952.
He remained actively involved with both law schools—and the university—for more than 70 years. In 2011 the IU School of Law in Indianapolis was renamed in his honor
ESG and Securities Litigation: A Basic Contradiction
Get PDFCompanies are increasingly expected to publicly report on not only their traditional financial results, but also environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) issues. Trillions of dollars are being invested with ESG considerations in mind, and boosters urge that ESG investing can address environmental and social impacts that are normally ignored by managers focused on share prices. This raises the question of how companies should be punished if they lie about ESG matters. How should the traditional elements of securities fraud map onto the novel ESG context? Commentators have vigorously debated ESG’s relationship to the materiality element of securities fraud. But the literature has largely overlooked the reliance element. Securities class action plaintiffs normally show reliance using the presumption introduced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Basic Inc. v. Levinson. If a plaintiff can show that a company’s shares trade in an efficient market, share prices are presumed to reflect all publicly available material information about the company. As a result, a material misstatement operates as a “fraud on the market,” and anyone who traded the company’s shares at the market price is presumed to have relied on the misstatement. This presumption makes securities class actions possible by dispensing with the need to prove that every individual plaintiff actually relied on the false information. As ESG disclosures expand, a new wave of litigation powered by Basic is developing.
This Article explores the reliance element of securities fraud and identifies a deep tension between the premises of the ESG movement and the premises of Basic. The advocates who urge corporations to do better on environmental and social matters largely—and justifiably— believe that share prices do not properly reflect corporate performance on those fronts. That belief is difficult to reconcile with Basic’s assumption that material information about a company is reflected in its share price. The Basic presumption could also chill valuable experimentation and voluntary disclosures by companies, and it could absolve institutional investors of the need to actually review and act on ESG disclosures. Counterintuitively, requiring plaintiffs who attack an ESG disclosure to show reliance without using Basic may help advance the goals of the ESG movement, particularly if other enforcers such as the Securities and Exchange Commission step up. These points suggest the need to proactively consider how the Basic presumption should work for ESG misstatements, along with the development of new and creative approaches. By shifting the conversation on ESG disclosures from its current emphasis on materiality to a proper focus on investor reliance and enforcement, this analysis generates fresh and actionable insights
