9571 research outputs found
Sort by
Play in the Joints and a Playground: Building a New Test Post-\u3ci\u3eTrinity Lutheran\u3c/i\u3e
Get PDF
A Silver Lining to Russia’s Sanctions-Busting Clause
Get PDFIn 2018, Russia began inserting an unusual clause into euro and dollar sovereign bonds, seemingly designed to circumvent future Western sanctions. The clause worked by letting the government pay in roubles if sanctions cut off access to dollar and euro payment systems. The clause received little scrutiny at the time, perhaps because Russia used a state-owned bank, rather than a global investment bank, as underwriter. But with the invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing sanctions imposed by the United States and other governments, the relevance of the clause has become clear. This Essay examines how the market reacted to the clause before and after the invasion. Our expectation was that the market would charge a premium for bonds with the clause. Investors bought euro and dollar bonds, after all, because they did not want to be paid in roubles. Yet contrary to expectations, investors seemed to prefer bonds that allowed for payment in roubles over bonds that did not. This surprising finding has considerable implications for other countries that may lose access to foreign currency for reasons that are more benign than Russia’s war of aggression. Despite its sordid provenance, Russia’s sanctions-busting clause might turn out to be a positive innovation that could benefit countries facing unexpected crises. Indeed, had Ukraine included such a clause in its bonds, the benefit would have been enormous
Seeing and Connecting the Dots: Legal Challenges to Countering Foreign Cyberattacks Launched From Within U.S. Domestic Cyberspace
Get PDF\u3ci\u3eBlue v. Durham Public School District\u3c/i\u3e and the Campaign for School Equalization in North Carolina
Get PDFMental Health History Is History: A Lifetime Ban on Gun Possession Due to History of Involuntary Commitment Violates the Second Amendment
Get PDFUnleashing Pets from Dead-Hand Control
Get PDFMany pet owners feel strongly about their animals. Some feel so strongly that they desire their pets to accompany them to the grave. This Article addresses the validity of pet euthanasia provisions in decedents’ wills.
Pet owners generally have the legal power to humanely euthanize their pets. In addition, the primary focus of the law of wills is to effectuate the wishes of the decedent. These two facts seem to counsel in favor of carrying out a testamentary instruction to humanely euthanize a companion animal. Yet courts generally decline to enforce pet euthanasia provisions whenever an objection is raised by someone who is willing to care for the animal. Why is this?
Neither courts nor commentators have converged on a consistent explanation as to why pet euthanasia provisions in wills should not be enforced. Some impose a tortured construction of the language of the will to find that the testator’s very clear instruction to euthanize their pet was not their true intent. Others find the euthanization of a healthy animal to violate a public policy in favor of animal welfare. Others find that euthanization of a healthy animal amounts to waste, at least when the animal is purebred or otherwise monetarily valuable. Many analyses combine bits and pieces of numerous approaches to create an analytical potpourri to justify the result.
This Article agrees with the outcome of finding testamentary pet euthanasia provisions unenforceable. It then comprehensively analyzes each of the rationales against enforcement of pet euthanasia provisions that have been offered by courts and commentators to date. In doing so, it finds significant flaws in the multifaceted approach employed by many courts and commentators in the past. Instead, this Article proposes that the antiwaste doctrine should be used as the single, simple, and sufficient rationale against enforcing pet euthanasia provisions in decedents’ wills
