August 11, 2015
Professor Ray Warner’s article, “Re-imaging Rescue: The View from the United States,” will be published in the Autumn 2015
G. Ray Warner
issue of Recovery. Recovery is the journal of The Association of Business Recovery Professionals, which is the leading organisation for insolvency, restructuring and turnaround specialists in the United Kingdom.
August 3, 2015
Professor Vincent Di Lorenzo presented a paper at the XXVII World Congress of the International Association for the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (IVR), held on July 27 – August 1, 2015 and hosted by Georgetown Law School. The paper, “Reason, Cognition and Emotion: A Study of Regulatory Philosophy and Enforcement Policy,” explores the light-touch approach to regulation that prevailed in the U.S. and U.K. until 2008 and was based on the regulatory viewpoint that mainstream corporations embraced an ethical commitment to legal compliance. It then examines the very recent change in regulatory viewpoint to one that views the corporation as a rational actor. This has led to an enforcement policy relying on billion dollar fines to deter future wrongdoing. The paper criticizes both regulatory philosophies, and calls for recognition of both complexity in organizational decisions and cognitive influences on organizational behavior. The paper then raises the issue of how enforcement policy might be altered to motivate greater organizational commitment to legal compliance.
August 3, 2015
Professor Christine Lazaro presented at PLI’s “Securities Arbitration 2015” on Thursday, July 30th. Professor Lazaro was on the panel entitled, “Recent Developments in the Law and Future Trends” along with Rick Berry, the Director of Dispute Resolution at FINRA, Greg Curley, Senior Litigation Counsel at AIG Advisor Group, and Joseph Peiffer, the current president of PIABA (the Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association). Professor Lazaro also submitted an article for the written materials for the program, “Suitability Obligations Applicable to Securities and Annuities,” co-authored with Benjamin Edwards.
August 3, 2015
Professor Michael Perino’s article, “The Gift of Inside Information,” has been cited in the Solicitor General’s petition for certiorari in U.S. v. Newman, a case concerning liability for insider trading under a gifting theory. Information about the case and a link to the petition may be found here.
July 20, 2015
On July 8th, Professor John Q. Barrett introduced Chautauqua Institution’s 11th annual Robert H. Jackson Lecture on the
Supreme Court of the United States. The lecturer, Professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard University, then delivered “The Constitution Writ Large,” addressing:
- the Charleston, South Carolina, murders;
- leading decisions in the Supreme Court’s just-completed term, including Zivotofsky v. Kerry (the Jerusalem birth/U.S. passport case), Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (the Confederate license plate case), and Obergefell v. Hodges (the marriage case);
- Justice Robert H. Jackson’s judging during his 1941-1954 tenure on the Supreme Court; and
- Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s judging today, including especially his recent opinion for the Court in Obergefell.
For YouTube video of the entire program, click here.
For the text of Professor Tribe’s lecture, click here and here.
May 13, 2015
Professor Warner will be participating in a week-long simulation of a cross-border bankruptcy case that will commence
G. Ray Warner
Monday, May 11th, with joint video hearings with a English judge in London and a U.S. judge in New York. The simulation is the culmination of the INSOL Global Insolvency Practice Course that trains experienced insolvency practitioners to handle cross-border cases. Professor Warner is the Course Leader. This year’s class includes 22 insolvency professionals from 14 different jurisdictions. This week’s simulation exercise also includes judges from Brazil, Canada, Germany & New Zealand.
May 11, 2015
Professor John Q. Barrett recently participated in the following:
- On March 25th, he spoke at DLA Piper’s Marbury Institute—live in New York City and by video feed to each of the firm’s offices—on “The Rule of Law at Nuremberg and Its Lessons for Today.”
- On April 17th, he spoke, about Nazi corruption of law, Justice Robert H. Jackson and the Nuremberg trial, at a professional ethics program co-sponsored by the Holocaust Research Center of Buffalo (click here for video).
- On April 27th, he lectured, on Justice Jackson and the Nuremberg trial, at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judges’ retreat.
- On May 4th, he attended the premiere, at the Robert H. Jackson Center in Jamestown, NY, of a new documentary film, “Liberty Under Law: The Robert H. Jackson Story.” Professor Barrett, Jackson’s biographer and a Fellow at the Jackson Center, is a prominent “talking head” in the film, which soon will air on public television and be distributed widely. For the film’s Facebook page, click here, and for local press on the Jamestown premiere, click here.
April 21, 2015
Professor Ray Warner is serving as a delegate of the International Insolvency Institute to
G. Ray Warner
UNCITRAL Working Group VI (Security Interests) during its drafting sessions this week at the UN in New York. Working Group VI is developing a a model international law on secured transactions.
March 24, 2015
Professor Anita Krishnakumar’s new article, “The Sherlock Holmes Canon,” has been accepted for publication in the George Washington Law Review. Here is the abstract:
Many of the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation cases infer meaning from Congress’s failure to comment in the legislative record. Colorfully referred to as the “dog that did not bark” canon, after a Sherlock Holmes story involving a watchdog that failed to bark while a racehorse was being stolen, the interpretive presumption holds as follows: if a new law or statutory amendment would significantly change the existing legal landscape, Congress can be expected to comment on that change in the legislative record; thus, a lack of congressional comment regarding a significant change can be taken as evidence that Congress did not intend a change in the law. Failure to comment arguments typically arise when the Supreme Court considers the meaning of a statutory provision that has been amended and an interpretation of the statute is advanced that arguably would change the status quo. Surprisingly, this canine canon of construction has received little theoretical attention—and what little attention it has received has tended to be positive, assuming that the canon leads courts to follow congressional intent. But there are several practical and theoretical problems with the assumptions underlying the canon.
This Article first examines how courts employ the Sherlock Holmes canon in practice. It then evaluates the canon’s normative and theoretical implications in detail. Ultimately, it argues that the Sherlock Holmes canon is a clear statement rule in disguise, in that it allows judges to freeze certain legal rules in place and to shift the institutional burden to Congress to be exceptionally clear when it wishes to effect certain kinds of legal change. The Article concludes that the canon should be invoked only in rare cases, when there is special reason for courts to expect or require Congress to comment on a change in the law.
February 23, 2015
Professor Ettie Ward was recently elected to the Executive Board and Secretary of the Sports Law Section of the AALS. Professor Ward was also elected to the Executive Boards of both the Civil Procedure and Litigation Sections.