December 17, 2014
Professor Michael Perino had a column in Friday, December 12th’s New York Times titled, “The Gift of Inside Information,” which discusses and criticizes a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A bit:
Insider trading is perhaps our most symbolic white-collar crime. Our ban on the practice expresses our deep social commitment to equality of opportunity; it embodies that peculiarly American revulsion for any special privileges that might be thought to accrue to the wealthy or to the political and social elite. As Preet Bharara, the United States attorney who spearheaded the most recent spate of prosecutions, explained, insider trading tells everybody “that everything is rigged and only people who have a billion dollars and have access to and are best friends with people who are on the boards of directors of major companies … can make a true buck.”
Allowing executives to give away information to whomever they choose so long as they get nothing in return simply makes no sense.
December 5, 2014
The American Banker ran Professor Jeff Sovern’s op-ed, Arbitration Clauses Trap Consumers with Fine Print, on the St. John’s Arbitration Study. Professor Sovern collaborated on the study with Professors Elayne Greenberg and Paul Kirgis, and the director of St. John’s Institutional Assessment, Yuxiang Liu. The full study can be found here.
December 2, 2014
Cleveland Plain Dealer consumer affairs columnist Sheryl Harris reported on the St. John’s arbitration study in her column, Arbitration – what you don’t know about fine print can hurt you: Plain Dealing. Here is an excerpt:
Well, lawyers at St. John’s University Law School recently conducted [a study] and found that even when [consumers] know there’s an arbitration clause in a contract, they often don’t understand what it really means — even when they think they do know.
Researchers showed consumers a standard credit card contract with a binding arbitration clause and then asked them a series of questions.
- Most people didn’t realize there was an arbitration clause in the contract.
- Of the 40-odd percent who spotted the clause, almost two-thirds believed – wrongly – that if the disputed amount was too big for small claims court, they could still go to common pleas or federal court.
- Less than 9 percent both spotted the arbitration clause and correctly said it would prevent all consumers from going to [a] court [other than a small claims court] to resolve a dispute.
Remarkably, 87 percent of the 303 people who swore they’d never agreed to a contract that contained an arbitration clause were flat-out wrong
How did researchers know? They asked people if they did business with AT&T Mobility, Sprint, Verizon, PayPal or Skype – companies whose contracts routinely require consumers to agree up front that if they ever have an issue with the company, they can only resolve it through binding arbitration.
“We don’t know about the remaining 13 percent,” says law prof Jeff Sovern, one of the authors of the study. Sovern says the number of people who had unwittingly agreed to mandatory arbitration is likely higher because researchers asked consumers about contracts with those five companies, not about every company they did business with.
November 14, 2014
Professor Vincent DiLorenzo’s article, “Congress Exempts Condominiums from the Interstate Land Sales Act,” was published in the New York Law Journal on November 12, 2014. The article examines the provisions of the Interstate Land Sales Act that allow purchasers to revoke contracts for the sale of condominiums when developers (a) have not complied with the registration and disclosure requirements of the Act, or (b) have not complied with the contractual requirements contained in the Act, including limits on available remedies for breach. HR 2600, passed in September and signed by the President, exempts condominiums from the registration and disclosure requirements of the Act. However, it is not clear if Congress intended to exempt condominium developers from the Act’s contractual requirements. This article explores that ambiguity in the statute and the courts’ interpretation of the scope of earlier exemptions that arguably extended to the Act’s contractual requirements.
In addition, Di Lorenzo’s paper, “Reason, Cognition and Emotion: A Study of Regulatory Standards and Enforcement Policy,” was accepted and will be presented at the World Congress of the International Society for the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy.
November 10, 2014
Professor John Q. Barrett, assisted by Barbara Gellis Traub, former Head of Reference & Instructional Services at St. John’s Rittenberg Law Library, helped draft and edit biographical information on the 154 Federal Judges who have served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and its predecessor, the U.S. District Court for the District of New York, from 1789 to the present. The Court was the nation’s first federal court and thus is nicknamed the “Mother Court.”
The judicial biographical entries are part of voluminous historical information that was distributed on thumb drives to guests at the Court’s 225th anniversary special session on November 4, 2014. This information soon will be available on the Court’s website.
The Court’s 225th anniversary will be celebrated throughout the next year, including in a series of public events and programs.
U.S. District Judges Deborah A. Batts and P. Kevin Castel ’75, Co-Chairs of the Southern District’s 225th anniversary celebration, recruited Barrett and Traub to assist with the biographies project.
Barbara Gellis Traub
October 31, 2014
Peggy McGuinness presented her forthcoming book chapter, “Treaties, Federalism and the Contestation of Missouri v. Holland,” at the Pace University Law School faculty colloquium on October 22. The Chapter will appear in Treaty Practice of the United States (Dubinsky, Fox, Roth eds., Cambridge Univ. Press) to be published in 2015. Professor McGuinness participated in a panel discussion of the book at International Law Weekend at Fordham Law School on October 25.
October 20, 2014
The Philadelphia Inquirer story, Consumers Rarely Use the Right to Cancel a Contract reports on Professor Jeff Sovern’s article, Written Notice of Cooling-Off Periods: A Forty-Year Natural Experiment in Illusory Consumer Protection and the Relative Effectiveness of Oral and Written Disclosures, forthcoming in the University of Pittsburgh Law Review. The article also quotes from an interview with Professor Sovern. The article states:
Sovern, who teaches consumer law and civil procedure at New York’s St. John’s University Law School, analyzed survey responses from 155 businesses that informed consumers of their right to cancel a deal. It rarely seemed to matter. . . .
“I’ve been teaching these laws for more than a quarter-century, and I’ve been wondering if they actually helped anybody,” [Sovern] told me last week.
For the full story, with additional quotes and discussion of Sovern’s research go to the full article.
September 29, 2014
Professor Cheryl Wade was invited to participate at a Financial Roundtable on comparative corporate governance sponsored by the law schools at the University of British Columbia and Osgoode Hall last month. Each participant contributed a chapter about corporate governance, finance, or securities law that discussed where the world is in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Professor Wade’s article, Gender Diversity on Corporate Boards: How Racial Politics Impedes Progress in the United States, was just published in a symposium issue of the Pace University School of Law International Law Review on Comparative Sex Regimes and Corporate Governance.
September 18, 2014
Professor David Gregory was interviewed by Brian Williams for the September 16th broadcast of the NBC National Evening News. He was featured during the segment on the current crisis facing the National Football League.
Professor Gregory was also interviewed by The New York Times to discuss the issues facing the NFL. He was quoted in the article “In League Ruled by Fiat, Response Seen as Flailing” in the September 16th issue.
August 19, 2014
The New York Times has published Professor Jeff Sovern’s letter responding to an article, Baby Pictures at the Doctor’s? Cute, Sure, but Illegal. The letter states in part:
You report that federal privacy laws block doctors from posting pictures of patient babies where others can see them. Surely parents sending baby pictures to physicians do not expect the photos to be secret.
The law should be amended to permit their posting, unless parents request that they be kept private. This is the type of regulation that fuels claims that government is the problem.
It is Professor Sovern’s 41st letter in the Times.