|
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 | ||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
||
 Expert Opinions | Editorials | Faculty Activities | Faculty Spotlight | Faculty Home
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
 rooklyn Law School faculty are frequently called upon for their expert opinions on a range of legal issues. Here are some recent quotes gathered from newspapers, magazines and online publications. Faculty news items are also featured in News & Announcements.
On the “Digital Age” program on WNYE in New York, Professor Jonathan Askin discussed the possibility that President-elect Barak Obama will appoint a digital czar.
Professor Derek Bambauer was quoted concerning the Federal Communications Commission chairman’s desire to create taxpayer-subsidized, free, high-speed wireless Internet in many parts of the United States, particularly in rural areas.
“If wi-fi is truly important to the economy or to the digital divide, it seems to make the most sense to pay for it from general tax revenues,” Bambauer said, adding the use of general funds is the approach “least likely to distort incentives in the Internet access market.” … Bambauer foresees “strong pressure for free wi-fi providers to filter traffic in ways that run directly counter to net neutrality” if Martin’s plans come to fruition, saying, “many of the rationales for filtering will seem laudable: preventing the transmission of viruses, inhibiting copyright infringement, and so forth.” Bambauer counters the presumed goodwill of these intentions by noting, “that type of content-specific traffic inspection is anathema to most conceptions of net neutrality.” … Bambauer said he hopes “free Wi-Fi will spur policymakers to be more precise and robust in how they define the elusive term ‘net neutrality’ at a technical level.”
Professor Edward Janger appeared in a Forbes.com story on October 2 concerning whether the U.S. government has the power to recoup any of the bonus pay awarded to executives on Wall Street in the past two years, given the recent collapse of the institutions where many of them worked.
Professor David Reiss was interviewed on WNYC on August 27 concerning the decision by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to stop buying subprime mortgages in New York State.
REISS: If the originating lender had done something improper, the borrower can as a defense say, I was treated inconsistently with the law and that should be taken into account when considering how much money I owe or whether I own my house or not. REPORTER: Fannie and Freddie say New York’s law creates too much legal jeopardy for them, and they’re forswearing new subprime loans entirely. It’s unclear how many subprime loans they already own in the state. A spokesman for Governor Paterson called their move ‘surprising.’
Professor James Fanto was interviewed for a story published July 28 concerning U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox and his handling of the Bear Stearns crisis last March. Cox is urging Congress to give the SEC the authority to supervise investment banks and take action if a firm is in danger of collapsing.
“The SEC is saying, ‘no, keep us involved in it, we should still be the main regulator’,” Fanto said.
Professor Jonathan Askin’s organization of a group of citizens at the Albany County Democratic headquarters on July 23 was mentioned in a news story on WNYT on July 24, and he was interviewed. The group met to help build a local platform for the Democratic National Convention, which will take place in August.
Professor Stacy Caplow was interviewed on March 04, 2008 on WNBC TV’s New York Nightly News by reporter Tim Minton concerning the closed courtroom during the trial of the stepfather of Nixzmary Brown, a 7-year-old abused child and murder victim.
[Professor Caplow] It’s pretty extraordinary. The presumption, of course, is that it’s going to be an open courtroom. [Reporter] What’s most unusual, law school Professor Stacy Caplow says, the defense found out about the [mystery] witness after the trial started, requiring days of hearings and delays before the court could be closed. [Professor Caplow] The evidence is less crisp and fresh in the jury’s mind, the more there is delay in the middle of the trial. Watch video
Professor Karen van Ingen was quoted in the Daily News in an article regarding how small investors have turned to law students to help them recover money that has been faultily invested and lost. Many small investors are not seeking a large enough amount of money to make the case worthwhile for a lawyer, since lawyers are compensated with only a portion of settlements. However, several New York-area law schools are now offering free clinics to these small investors, allowing law students to represent clients in securities cases.
“A lot of people are embarrassed that they have lost money. But a lot of people lose money and it’s not their fault,” van Ingen said. “We can see if you have a good case. Make the call.”
Professor David Reiss was quoted in an article in The Brooklyn Daily Eagle regarding the solutions to the foreclosure crisis for low income homeowners in Brooklyn. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez had convened a roundtable of housing and finance experts, including Professor Reiss, to brainstorm short- and long-term solutions to the subprime mortgage crisis. The right to an attorney for homeowners in foreclosure, proposed by Professor Reiss, was one of three key proposals that emerged.
He said 75 percent of foreclosures in Brooklyn are the result of default judgment because the homeowner didn’t appear in court, indicating they can’t afford legal representation.
Professor Minna Kotkin was quoted in the Forward in an article about how poorly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, covering employment discrimination, is being enforced. Although the number of employment discrimination cases filed has nearly tripled in the last 10 years, the amount of public information about them has dwindled because most cases are settled outside of court with strict confidentiality agreements.
Professor Nelson Tebbe was quoted in the Times Herald-Record regarding an election dispute before the New York State Court of Appeals. The case involves two Satmar Hasidic groups, one in Kiryas Joel and the other in Brooklyn. Questions arose about this “power struggle” and whether it can be settled by purely secular means or whether there are religious concerns at hand that go “beyond the court’s jurisdiction.”
Neutral principles, in this context, are those that can be decided “without resorting to religious doctrine,” he said.
Professor Ann Althouse wrote an article, “Justice on the Couch,” in The New York Sun about Jeffrey Toobin’s new book, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Althouse reviews Toobin’s new book, suggesting that in it, “legal methodology” does not carry as much weight as “human individuals.” Rather, Toobin’s analysis is a juicy, readable account of the idiosyncrasies of the Justices, but lacks a more thorough “legal analysis.”
It may well be that judicial intuition and ideology have more effect on the cases than do the arguments based on precedent and statutory and constitutional texts, but The Nine doesn’t put the reader in any position to reach a fair conclusion about that. Mr. Toobin spares us any tedious development of the legal issues and arguments as he dishes up the lively, impressionistic quotes and images that suggest decisions are a very personal expression of the nine individuals who sit on the Court. It’s just one big psychodrama.”
Professor Nan D. Hunter, the director of Brooklyn Law School’s Center for Health, Science and Public Policy, has co-authored a new report by the New York Academy of Medicine that addresses “shelter in place” issues that should be included in emergency preparedness plans. She was quoted on Oct. 1, 2007 in an article on NewsRx.com, “Academy releases emergency preparedness tools to enable millions more people to shelter in place,” about the report. “Shelter in place” refers to people staying safely inside the building or structure where they are when a disaster occurs. Many current emergency preparedness plans do not address important issues concerning sheltering in place. The Academy’s report, “With the Public’s Knowledge, We Can Make Sheltering in Place Possible,” includes four issue sets that are tailored to the needs of homes, work places, schools and governments.
Professor David Reiss was interviewed on WNYC about the increased use by cities and states – and private developers – of eminent domain. Under this doctrine, governments can take private property in order to build public projects that benefit society; according to the Fifth Amendment, private property cannot be “taken” for public use without just compensation. But since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) that a Connecticut town could take residential and commercial property for private development if the resulting project would create new jobs, increase tax revenues, etc., the doctrine of eminent domain is increasingly being used to benefit developers.
Professor David Reiss was quoted in the Star-Ledger concerning lawmakers’ imminent consideration of stricter rules for credit-rating agencies like Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s Investors Service, and Fitch Ratings. Following the recent crisis in subprime mortgage markets, the agencies are being criticized for failing to accurately assess the risks involved in investing in those markets. Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch are fighting back. In the first half of this year, according to the article, they spent $460,000 lobbying in Washington, D.C.
Professor Elizabeth M. Schneider was quoted in an article in The National Law Journal that reported the filing of a sex discrimination class action by a top in-house lawyer at General Electric Co. against her employer. The suit, filed by Loren Schaefer, general counsel of GE’s transportation division, alleges that the company systematically fails to promote women to its top echelons.
Professor William Hellerstein was quoted in an article in The New York Times about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s denial of an appeal by his client, who was convicted of murder in 1992, despite the fact that five eyewitnesses later recanted under oath. Fernando Bermudez, who is serving a sentence of 23 years to life in Sing Sing Correctional Facility, claimed on appeal that he deserved a new trial because the core evidence against him had been recanted. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office argued that the recanted testimony remained credible. A Second Circuit panel determined that Bermudez had not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights had been denied.
Professor Roberta Karmel was mentioned in an article about a Securities and Exchange Commission roundtable that addressed a plan to loosen restrictions on foreign broker-dealers that do business in U.S. securities markets. Under the proposed approach of “mutual recognition,” foreign broker-dealers who are registered in their own countries would be allowed to provide products to U.S. customers without having to register with the SEC or go through intermediaries. Professor Karmel commented on the benefits of the change for some investors and investment managers.
A letter to the editor by Professor Nathanial Berman appeared in The New York Times concerning an op-ed piece published June 7 about the war in Iraq.
The fact is that the United States has already been defeated in this war, that the defeat was predictable, and was in fact predicted even before the invasion. More important than military defeat, the United States has been morally disgraced both for starting the war and for its conduct of the war, unleashing unfathomable levels of death and misery on Iraqis. It is the war’s initiators and supporters who are responsible for the terrible consequences of the American disgrace in Iraq. It is absurd to be “against defeat”: what we need now are those who can grapple with its reality.
Journal of Accountancy, a monthly publication by the American Institute of CPAs, quoted Professor Roberta Karmel, who participated in an SEC roundtable in March that addressed the international convergence of two sets of reporting rules for accountants. About 100 countries require or encourage the convergence of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). In the United States, the Financial Accounting Standards Board agreed to develop common accounting standards by 2008, and an SEC “road map” would allow foreign issuers that list on U.S. exchanges to report exclusively in IFRS by 2009.
Professor William Hellerstein was quoted in an article in The New York Law Journal discussing the legacy three-term, Republican governor George E. Pataki leaves behind in the New York Court of Appeals. According to experts, Pataki leaves behind a more conservative court that is less protective of individual rights in both criminal and civil cases.
“Personally, I still love the Court and I love to go up and argue,” he said. “I think it is a wonderful place to be a lawyer. I’ve never felt that I couldn’t win a case there. I certainly can’t say that with the Supreme Court."
Professor Roberta Karmel was quoted in an InvestmentNews article about the proposed merger between NYSE Group, Inc., operator of the New York Stock Exchange, and Euronext NV of Amsterdam, Netherlands. Industry officials are uncertain about the success of such a merger, as the trading systems are based on different legal systems.
She added, “In particular, I think the trade-through rule [under Regulation in the United States] and certain provisions of [the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive for the European Union] just don’t fit together.”
Professor David Reiss was quoted in a Brooklyn Daily Eagle article about property owners in the Brooklyn Atlantic Yards area who filed a federal lawsuit to prevent the state from seizing their property through the use of eminent domain. Attorneys for the property owners claim that the suit is based on the abuse of eminent domain.
He added, “A lot of eminent domain cases occur in the absence of a legislative process,” and legally speaking, “informal communication between the developer and the government before the formal proposal was made is not an unacceptable way to move forward. The mere fact that there was a communication does not make it suspect.”
Practitioner in Residence Gerald Shargel was quoted in a New York Times article about a criminal case against a former train employee who is on trial for killing two transit supervisors inside a Coney Island railyard in 2004. The defendant’s lawyers have been building a case against the police, attacking the scope of the investigation, the process of gathering evidence, the methods of interrogation, and the truthfulness of the detectives.
“Historically, Brooklyn jurors, as shown by verdicts that have been returned and what may be called common experience, have a certain distrust of the police.”
Professor Roberta Karmel was quoted in a Financial Executive article about SEC regulations such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that have deterred foreign companies from listing their stocks in the U.S. markets. Though there are a variety of reasons why foreign companies may choose to list outside of the U.S., growing concerns have led to the creation of a new commission called the Committee on Capital Markets Regulations, which will recommend changes to regulations including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act if they are found to be hurting the competitiveness of U.S. markets.
Professor Jason Mazzone was quoted in an article in The National Jurist magazine about the controversial ban on laptop computers from law school classrooms. While some law school professors find laptops necessary, despite the possible distractions, others find students taking better class notes and more engaged in classroom discussions when laptops are not permitted.
Visiting Professor Ira Mark Ellman was quoted in a Washington Times article about how courts should handle the children, property, and other assets of couples when they split up, including same-sex couples, unmarried couples that live together, and couples in which both partners work. In 2002, the American Law Institute (ALI) proposed answers to these questions in Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in a Financial Times article on a recent court decision in a tobacco-related suit against the Altria Group. Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Altria Group had misled consumers, but she declined to impose a significant financial penalty against the firm. The Altria board of directors had for some time contemplated spinning off its Kraft unit, but postponed the decision to do so until the outcome and remedy of the suit was determined.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in a New York Times front-page article on new laws that have been enacted in 15 states allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to murder charges.
“In effect,” Professor Sebok said, “the law allows citizens to kill other citizens in defense of property.”
Professor David Reiss was quoted in a recent TheDeal.com article on litigation between Fannie Mae and a New Orleans-based apartment operator as a result of damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Fannie Mae, a government sponsored enterprise, seeks to encourage home ownership by offering mortgage insurance to lenders offering single-family home loans. Following the hurricane damage, GC MultiFamily-New Orleans LP asked Fannie Mae for a forbearance of the debt it owed, so that the funds could be devoted to hurricane recovery. Fannie Mae declined, and demanded the mortgage payments under threat of default.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in an Associated Press article about ongoing tobacco litigation in Florida, where a recent Florida Supreme Court decision left an escrow account worth over $700 million in limbo. The tobacco industry defendants created the account as part of an agreement with the plaintiffs, in exchange for the plaintiffs allowing the industry to challenge the larger award, $145 billion, in the Florida Supreme Court without having secured a bond for the larger judgment. A decision by the Florida Supreme Court decertified the class of plaintiffs, and in doing so the recipients of the escrow funds are now in question.
The escrow agreement granted the trial court wide discretion in determining the use of the money. Among the options a judge will have are distributing money to plaintiffs, paying attorney fees or setting up a smoking-cessation program or other public-health fund.
Visiting Professor Wendy Seltzer was quoted in a San Jose Mercury News article on the risk Internet users face when posting negative feedback to message boards, blogs, and sites such as eBay’s feedback forum. In some cases, the subjects of these postings have sued the posters for defamation, placing a burden on the posters to defend themselves in an unexpected lawsuit that may cross jurisdictional boundaries.
Professor William E. Hellerstein was quoted in a New York Law Journal article about proposed changes to New York’s indigent defense system. The Commission on the Future of Indigent Defense Services, for which Professor Hellerstein served as co-chair, concluded that an overhaul could not fix the current system, and it proposes replacing the current defense network with a new, statewide, state-funded system governed by consistent regulations and standards.
Professor William E. Hellerstein was quoted in The Times Union in an article on efforts to create a unified public defender system in New York state. Presently, each of New York’s 62 counties is primarily responsible for providing counsel to the indigent defendants in its boundaries. Legal aid lawyers are often overwhelmed by their caseload and unable to investigate each case fully, while in other instances no legal aid lawyers are available at all. Professor Hellerstein, who co-chairs the Commission on the Future of Indigent Defense Services, recently issued a report calling for a statewide “Defender General” and an oversight committee to be created as part of the state government of New York.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in a Financial Times article on the recent decrease in new lawsuits against the tobacco industry. After a wave of new lawsuits following a 1998 settlement between the industry and 46 states, the number of suits brought in recent years has decreased, due in part to changes the tobacco industry adopted in its advertising and marketing strategies, and in part to the success the industry has had in defending itself.
Class actions face strong headwinds as no federal appeals court has ever allowed a tobacco case to remain certified. “The appellate courts have been hostile to plaintiffs’ lawyers trying to aggregate claims,” Mr. Sebok added.
Professor Margaret Berger was quoted in a USA Today article discussing the difficulties courts face in assessing expert scientific evidence, and in particular, the Andrea Yates murder trial, in which a renowned forensic psychiatrist’s testimony was a critical factor in her conviction. Such testimony is subject to the Daubert standard laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, which instructed judges to admit only scientific evidence that was “relevant and reliable.”
Professor Roberta Karmel was quoted in an Investor’s Business Daily article on the proposed merger between the New York Stock Exchange and the Paris-based Euronext stock exchanges. Some companies in Europe are skeptical of the merger, fearing that new European companies trading on the new exchange may be subject to U.S. laws, while others argue that it may allow U.S. companies a means of evading some regulatory oversight.
Professor Michael Cahill was quoted in a New York Times article about a man who was charged with promoting a suicide attempt. During an outing in Bear Mountain State Park, his family’s minivan was stopped along the side of the road overlooking a cliff. The man stepped out of the car, while his wife and children remained in the car and the wife put the car in gear and drove off the cliff; she was killed, but the children were not seriously injured.
“The language of the provision is that you have to cause or aid another person’s suicide attempt,” he said, “and I wouldn’t think that just leaving the car would amount to aiding another person’s suicide attempt.”
Professor Susan Herman was quoted in a New York Times article on the American Civil Liberties Union, which is weighing new standards that would discourage its board members from publicly criticizing the organization’s policies and internal administration.
Professor Roberta Karmel was quoted in an article in the Dow Jones Newswires about the prospect of merging some of the regulatory functions of the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued a concept release asking for opinions about a hybrid self-regulator in late 2004, and has been collecting comments on the matter ever since.
“If you don’t have any choice or competition among regulators, it’s essentially a monopoly,” she said. It could become an “outsourcing of power without the accountability you have with a government agency.”
Visiting Professor Wendy Seltzer was quoted in The Denver Post in a column about a candy company owned by teenaged siblings, The Chocolate Farm, that received a cease-and-desist ultimatum from corporate giant Russell Stover Candies. The company was told by to stop using the name "sampler" for one of its assortments because the name was trademarked by Whitman’s Sampler, now owned by Russell Stover. Columnist Al Lewis wrote:
"As long as they are using the term descriptively – talking about a box of chocolate with lots of different items – that would be a fair use of the word, even if someone else claims it as a trademark," she said. Cease-and-desist letters from big companies are common, Seltzer said. "It's bullying, and we see an awful lot of bullying from big companies," she said.
Professor Edward Cheng was quoted in a Chicago Daily Law Bulletin article on a challenge to the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence in the Illinois state courts. Amtrak, in its appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court in the case of National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Noakes, seeks to have the state abandon the older Frye standard in favor of the more modern Daubert standard. Professor Cheng, with Professor Albert Yoon of the Northwestern University School of Law, examined the practical implications of each standard in a 2005 essay for the Virginia Law Review, which also discussed the various factors that must be considered in applying Daubert.
Cheng and Yoon said the results of their study have sparked discussion. Many attorneys agree with the overall thesis—that little practical difference exists between how the two standards are applied to tort cases in state courts, Cheng said. But some question the use of removal rates as a methodology because some defendants will want their cases removed to federal court no matter what.
Professor Susan N. Herman was quoted in The Denver Post on an article about the trial of Saudi national Homaidan Al-Turki on charges that he raped, enslaved and underpaid his Indonesian housekeeper. Al-Turki's defense attorneys argue that the trial is being run as though their client has been charged with terrorism-related crimes. Al-Turki's case is among a new generation of post-9/11 cases that pit national security interests with defendants' right to due process.
The judge has to examine each fact, witness and document and determine how they affect due process when criminal and intelligence cases merge. "Because there are now two entirely different tracks, there is bound to be a clash when those tracks meet in the middle," Herman said. "It seems to me the rule of what's fair in a criminal case cannot depend on what else the "government is trying to accomplish."
Professor Norman Poser was quoted in an article in the National Law Journal on the recent case of Merrill Lynch v. Dabit. In Dabit, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) preempts state law class actions brought by people claiming that they suffered losses when they were fraudulently induced to hold or retain securities. Because the federal law does not recognize holder claims, Dabit forecloses both federal and state remedies to class action holder claims.
Professor David Reiss was quoted in a Newsday article on the use of eminent domain by the Brookhaven Town Board in Long Island to halt a developer's planned subdivision on 40 acres of farmland. Eminent domain allows states to appropriate private property for public use.
Professor Robert A. Kahn was quoted in an article in Voice of America News titled, "Even in the West, Free Speech is not an Absolute Right." The article focused on laws in western societies that impose limits on free speech. It also touched on the religious cartoons that sparked riots in Muslim countries and posed the question to Professor Kahn on why no major American newspaper published the cartoons.
"The countries that tend to have the laws that specifically ban Holocaust denial - France, Germany, and Austria - either participated in the Holocaust or had serious problems with collaboration," he says. "Even though the United States and Canada have large Jewish communities, and have survivors and people who experienced the Holocaust, it's not the same type of thing." "The United States is a religious country and understands the idea of respecting or disrespecting someone else's religion," he says. "Whereas you could make an argument that Europe is much more secular, and that therefore the idea that you would run something that profanes the Prophet is not as big a deal."
Professor Anthony J. Sebok was quoted in a New Jersey Law Journal article about an upcoming New Jersey case in which 22 cities and counties in New Jersey suing lead paint makers are basing their case on a public nuisance argument as opposed to conventional theories of product liability. The same argument proved successful in a recent Rhode Island case against lead paint manufacturers.
That's what happened when cities and states began applying public nuisance law to gun litigation, Sebok notes. The gun industry faced public nuisance suits from many public entities, including New Jersey, where the Appellate Division upheld a public nuisance claim in James v. Arms Technology, 359 N.J. Super. 291 (2003). Congress followed with a 2005 law giving gun makers broad immunity.
Professor Anthony J. Sebok was quoted in an article in The Legal Intelligencer titled, "Helping Underfunded Plaintiff's Lawyers - at a Price." The article looked at the growing industry of financial firms that grant high interest loans to plaintiffs' lawyers, allowing them to pursue or continue litigation. Since most of these litigation finance companies only get back their loan with interest payments if the plaintiffs' lawyers win, the article raised the possibility that this practice may lead to continuous litigation of claims with no merit.
Professor William E. Hellerstein was quoted in an article in The Times Union on judicial reforms being pushed by New York Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye. One such reform would be forming a statewide publicly funded system of indigent defense services. This was the finding of a commission created by the chief judge two years ago to examine the state of indigent defense in New York. Professor Hellerstein co-chaired the commission.
Now the plan is to appoint a chief defender for the state, a series of regional defenders and a system of cohesive standards for all, he said.
Professor Susan N. Herman was quoted in an Associated Press article about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's past decisions, which many say show his tendency to defer to the executive branch in cases dealing with executive authority.
Professor Anthony J. Sebok was quoted in an article in The Kansas City Star on the Illinois Supreme Court's reversal of a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA. Plaintiffs in the suit are now considering a U.S. Supreme Court appeal.
"The basis for the decision is under state law. The law under which it was decided is not one in which the U.S. Supreme Court can get jurisdiction."
Professor Anthony J. Sebok was quoted in a Chicago Tribune article on the Illinois Supreme Court's reversal of a $10.1 billion verdict against Philip Morris USA. In the 4-2 decision, the court ruled that Philip Morris is not liable in a class action suit accusing the company of defrauding Illinois smokers into believing that "light" cigarettes were safer than regular varieties.
"This is the most narrow decision [the court] could possibly have come up with," he said.
Professor Norman S. Poser was quoted in an article in MarketWatch on the New York Stock Exchange's rule change that would allow the exchange to hold off on delisting companies that are more than one year late in filing annual reports. Although the rule changes seems to be a custom-made break for Fannie Mae, the mortgage concern whose annual report for the 2004 fiscal year was due by March 16, 2005, many critics recognize the destabilizing ramifications that may occur from delisting such a giant company.
Professor Gary Minda was quoted in a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article about the proliferation of boycotts targeting companies for perceived offenses.
“That’s why we’re seeing so many – there are about 200 going on at any given time. A lot of people are felling frustrated, and one way to express their dissent is through boycotts.” Today, he said, boycotts are not only a healthy safety valve, they also serve a regulatory function beyond what the government can or will do. “Take a transnational company located outside the U.S. and not regulated by any one jurisdiction. If it’s doing awful things – using child labor, outsourcing jobs, not complying with safety regulations – what can you do? You can boycott.” As for the ease of starting such an action in the Internet age, Mr. Minda had one word of caution: “With so many boycotts ongoing, there’s a real possibility nobody will take them seriously.”
Professor Marsha Garrison was quoted in a New York Times article on the role that abortion will play in Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Judge Alito's most talked-about decision since his nomination was his 1991 dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which Judge Alito wanted to uphold a Pennsylvania law that required women to notify their husbands when seeking an abortion. His view was rejected by a majority of the judges, and later, by the Supreme Court.
Ms. Garrison said even if a man is tricked into impregnating a woman, many courts have held that “well, it just doesn’t matter: if you engage in sexual intercourse, you assume the risk that a child will be born.” Of course, ultimately, technology could change things yet again. Fathers may end up with rights in abortion cases, Professor Garrison said, “if the day ever comes when men can become pregnant or we have artifical incubators” so that a woman’s womb is unnecessary.
Professor Gerald Shargel, Practitioner in Residence, was interviewed by Tim Minton, a reporter for the News Channel 4/Live at Five TV program. Shargel, a prominent criminal defense attorney, commented about the legal basis for granting bail in the controversial case of a 16-year-old boy who was shot and apprehended by police after an alleged gunpoint robbery. At the time, the suspect was out on $150,000 bail in an unrelated case in which he is accused of second-degree manslaughter.
Professor Karen van Ingen, director of the BLS Securities Arbitration Clinic, was referenced in a Newsday article that provided tips on avoiding, or resolving, disputes with brokers.
Professor Steven A. Dean was quoted in a New York Times article on the federal investigation of questionable tax shelters sold by accounting firm KPMG. The article noted that the I.R.S.' investigation of the firm and its former partners was much more aggressive than how it has previously handled cases regarding questionable tax shelters.
Professor David Reiss was quoted in the Village Voice in an article about eminent domain. A new luxury office building in Manhattan, built by The New York Times and Forest City Ratner Companies, has lease restrictions that exclude many public enterprises such as fast food restaurants, classrooms, day care centers, medical clinics and any government office attracting people who arrive “without an appointment.” The irony is that the site of the new building had been occupied by other businesses that were condemned under eminent domain for a so-called “public purpose.” Reference is made to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning the seizure of homes in New London, Conn. for private development, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, but stressed that any government deals intended to benefit politically connected private parties should be forbidden.
But is that enough of a “public use” for the state to seize one privately owned office building to replace it with a more exclusive one that someone else owns? Reiss suggested that the standard should be “substantial use by the general public.” It would be interesting to see that applied to an office building that bars all employment offices except for executive-search firms.
Professor Lisa C. Smith was quoted in a New York Times article on the criticism that Leslie Cocker Snyder, a candidate for Manhattan District Attorney, heaped on Robert M. Morgenthau. She pointed out that Mr. Morgenthau's office does not have a special bureau with prosecutors who handle only domestic violence cases, and that half of its DV cases are dismissed by judges.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in a New York Daily News article, “250M in Vioxx Death May be Tip of 18B Iceberg for Merck,” about the first ruling in thousands of lawsuits pending against the maker of the once-popular painkiller. The verdict caused an immediate slump in Merck's stock value and put the New Jersey-based company's future in question.
"If they can't win the weak [cases], what does that say about the strong ones?" asked Sebok.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in The New York Times on the Illinois Supreme Court’s reversal of a $1 billion judgment against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance. The ruling signaled that the judges would probably throw out a $10.1 billion award in a class action suit against Phillip Morris USA, a unit of the Altria Group, over the marketing of “light” cigarettes as safer.
Professor Anthony Sebok was quoted in a National Law Journal article about the pending RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) trial decision, expected in October, against the tobacco industry. The Court has yet to rule on the government's claim that the industry for decades has engaged in a pattern of unlawful conduct designed to deceive the American public about the health hazards of smoking. But lurking in the background is the fact that the government recently asked the Supreme Court to review a 2-1 ruling by a panel of the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia which eliminated the government's centerpiece remedy: disgorgement of $280 billion that the government contends was earned by the fraud.
“The tobacco case is a case about consumer fraud,” Sebok added. “I don't think Congress has decided yet to nationalize consumer fraud law. There is a risk here of mission creep, which is a reason why the Supreme Court might take the case.” Sebok also thinks the Second Circuit approach may be the correct one even though it is difficult to state exactly what the rule there is. “I think the Supreme Court could take the case because it honestly recognizes a genuine question for future RICO adjudication,” he said.
Professor Norman S. Poser was quoted in the Newark Star Ledger in an article about the theft of clients’ money over a three year period by an advisor at American Express Financial Advisors in South Jersey. The company had a policy allowing advisers to pick their own compliance supervisors and pay them. New Jersey securities regulators fined American Express Financial Advisors $5 million and are looking more broadly at the securities industry to determine whether other brokerage firms have similar procedures or are failing in different ways to properly supervise advisers and brokers.
|
