The United States is founded on the premise of equal protection. Equal protection is the scheme of legislated equality which encompasses notions of fairness, goodness, fraternity and social justice. It’s about maintaining a social stratification system which encourages any person to achieve their fullest potential by preventing the worst forms of social distinctions to arise. For years, members of our society, our elected officials and governing bodies have fought vigorously to implement programs and laws that promote this idea. In just our recent history, we have seen the passage of the Fair Housing Act, Title VII and The American’s with Disabilities Act. However, little has been done to combat the social inequalities that our financial institutions have created by the painstaking road blocks they have constructed to gain access to mainstream financial services. These hurdles have prevented valuable members of our society from gaining admittance to a world driven by ecommerce. They have been disallowed from reaping the myriad benefits that savings accounts and electronic banking afford to more financially endowed individuals. That was, until the Financial Service Centers of America (FiSCA) and NetSpend Corporation took it upon themselves to collaborate and create The All-Access NetSpend National Savings Program.[1] [More]

More than 3.5 million sports-related concussions take place in the United States each year. Sports injuries are most prevalent in the high school setting, and injuries can be fatal. Perhaps the most shocking reality is that the majority of the legal cases which develop as a result of these sports injuries and fatalities will be dismissed in court. The reason being, that on every occasion a person voluntarily attends or participates in any sporting event, he or she is surrendering an individual right to sue for injury or death whether expressly agreed to or not. Courts recognize this principle as “primary assumption of risk.” Illinois courts have promulgated a more fine tuned law for contact sports because of their propensity to result in the most debilitating injuries. However, participants are not the only characters involved, spectators at sporting events also assume similar foreseeable risks. Although these key players are sacrificing the right to sue, many fear that increasing liability under the assumption of risk doctrine will eventually result in the elimination of the sports industry altogether. Sports competition by its very nature cannot divorce itself of the innate risk of injury, and if the attachment of liability to foreseeable conduct in unregulated and regulated sports activities were a reality, the potential for consequential high court costs, verdicts, and settlements would deprive America of its favorite pastime. [More]

I. Introduction

The Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 were enacted in response to the Stock Market Crash of 1929 that ushered in the Great Depression. [1] In passing the Acts, Congress’ intention was to implement regulations that would govern the ways securities were bought and sold in the United States and to protect individual consumers from securities fraud. Specifically, Section 10(b) of the 1933 Act and Rule 10b-5 of the 1934 Act regulate fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. [2] [More]

I. Introduction

The decision of Judge Jed Rakoff in the settlement agreement between Bank of America (“BofA”) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) is one that could strike fear in the hearts of corporate attorneys everywhere. On August 3, 2009, the SEC filed charges against the Bank of America Corporation for its lack of disclosure to its shareholders about bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch executives in the merger. [1]

The Bank of America/Merrill Lynch merger is a complicated web of litigation and investigation that has become multifaceted as time goes on. As stated by Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel, “It’s like a multiplayer chess game where each party is making different moves from a different strategic position and each party has a huge amount at stake.” [2] [More]

President Obama’s September 11th decision to restrict imports of Chinese tires has sparked a taxing debate both domestically and abroad. On top of the preexisting four percent tariff on all tire imports, the president determined to impose additional duties of 35-30-25 percent ad valorem tapered down over three years, specifically upon certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China. [1] China responded within days by raising a World Trade Organization ("WTO") challenge to the safeguard, alleging that Obama’s actions are inconsistent with existing international laws. [2] Meanwhile, the proclamation has incited both criticism and praise from a variety of domestic and foreign interests. This article will assess the legality, consequences, and judiciousness of implementing such a tariff and conclude with a word on the free trade versus protectionism debate. [More]

I. Introduction

Rising gas prices and an increasing awareness of the environmental consequences associated with the use of fossil fuels have spurred the development of the biofuel industry. “From being merely an interest of marginal innovators, it has become a multi-million dollar business – transforming economies – thanks to rising attention and support from governments and the public.”[1] With the US consuming nearly 20.8 billion barrels of oil per day, and with OPEC officials claiming they will not be able to meet the projected western oil demands in 10 to 15 years, the prospect of meeting our energy needs through homegrown and renewable resources is becoming more appealing.[2],[3] But this seemingly cut and dry solution to the US dependency on fossil fuels is not as simple as it appears. The actual economic and environmental benefits realized by relying more heavily on biofuels is hotly debated, and due to the fluid nature and unpredictability of the world market, concrete answers are hard to come by. Before considering the impact of a switch to biofuels, it is important to understand the true costs of our current oil dependency. [More]

As the economy is getting worse homeowners residing in common interest communities are struggling to pay their monthly assessment fees. As a result, many property owners are unable to pay their fees and are accumulating monthly debts. Homeowners associations are faced with difficult choices of how to keep the community alive but also keep members in their homes. In many states, homeowners associations are pursuing non-judicial foreclosure against property owners who have not paid their assessment fees. Property owners are outraged because they are at risk for losing their primary residence and largest investment. Legislatures in different states have reacted by enacting laws that limit the power of homeowners associations to pursue foreclosure. First, this article will explore the law governing common interest communities and homeowners associations. Second, this article will address and criticize various state responses to this problem. Finally, this article will propose a solution that attempts to address the concerns of the homeowners associations and their members. [More]

I. Introduction

Rio de Janeiro will be the first Olympic location in the history of South America. This is the result of Brazil gaining status internationally and integrating to the global market. Apart from sports, globalization has had a great impact on the business transactions and also in the rules enacted in Brazil. An increasing number of international merger companies and nations had switched a red light on the antitrust law regime for merger control that coexists in the many jurisdictions.[1] The different views of antitrust law in each country are important to determine the approach and practical implications of the review systems application.[2] In the merger context, there are significant burdens in international business operations when companies are required to comply with a diversity of procedural requirements in domestic regimes regulations. Over sixty nations have merger notification requirements. Transactional costs are elevated when the merging parties have to report and produce detailed information for each jurisdiction to assess the transaction.[3]

This article discusses the challenges and benefits of the harmonization of merger reviews procedures among different countries. Part II identifies the importance of the suggested modifications in the Brazilian antitrust law while seeking the internationalization of the merger review process. Part III describes the likely coming new rules for the Brazilian antitrust organization. Part IV concludes by pointing out the increased convergence to the procedures in effect by the Unites States antitrust authorities. [More]

In the months preceding elections in the United States it is difficult to avoid statistical sampling, as polling projections are everywhere. Only a sample is used to make these projections because it would take too much time and be too expensive to determine how every voter will vote. [1] Statistical sampling has many others uses as well, including being used as evidence in a trial [2] or being used to estimate how much a taxpayer owes the government on their tax return. [3] As with elections, to determine the exact result for a tax return, every item in the population would need to be investigated. As a population gets larger, this gets more time consuming and more expensive, especially when the information is collected by experts, lawyers, and accountants. Furthermore, each additional item of the population collected will not result in a proportionate change in the precision of the estimate, because the precision of an estimate varies inversely with the square root of the sample size. [4] Tax deductions and credits may be difficult to calculate, but rather than render them worthless to taxpayers or get rid of them completely, statistical sampling should be encouraged when calculations would otherwise be too difficult to calculate. [More]

I. Introduction

There is no question that the economy retracted within the last few years. Stock values have fallen, unemployment rates have climbed and we have seen the bankruptcy filings of companies that were once thought as “too big to fail.” One of the main assailants for this economy retraction was the housing bubble. There is no question that companies were investing in poisonous assets, which eventually devalued the worth of their shares. One of the questions posed in this paper is whether or not third party investors looking to make a quick buck agitated this problem by taking advantage of the devaluation? The next question is whether this type of investing should be regulated and to what extent? [More]