Volume 7.


The Journal's 2011 volume was lead by Editor-in-Chief Derek Ryan Lowrey and his team. We invite you to explore the content; then contribute to the conversation. Submit a response, report a development, or pen the next article.



Published in Winter 2007.  The first article explores the inconsistent treatment of wealthy investors under federal securities laws.  The second article discusses problems with materiality in disclosure requirements in businesses aboard, especially in Iran.  The third compares the outcomes of court debt collection cases and American Arbitration Association arbitrations, discussing the impacts of bias on the results.  The fourth article criticizes the IRS’s dependence on Penn v. Robertson for the unwind doctrine.  The first student note catalogues the steps that China has made in becoming more transparent with its government agencies.  The second note describes the need for California to adopt employment protections for lifestyle choices, choices that place private employees in jeopardy for participating in social media.

More detailed summaries below, as well as links to respond. What will you contribute? Responses will be published in our online pocket part on a rolling basis. 



Published in Summer 2011. The comment challenges the misconception that Offshore financial centres (“OFCs”) are merely “tax havens” and argues that OFCs offer many other practical uses in international business. The first article critiques Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., a United States Supreme Court case, which held that the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 precludes causes of action for misconduct in securities traded extraterritorially on foreign exchanges, and offers alternative methods by which such claims may be pursued in United States federal courts.  The second article critiques the contract paradigm of advancement of legal fees to employees facing white-collar criminal investigation and proposes a duty paradigm that would encourage conscious consideration of legitimate interests beyond those of the immediate parties to the bargain. The third article analyzes the disparate theories of corporate governance between America, Germany, and the United Kingdom and argues that the empowerment of stakeholder investors is the only currently viable means for stakeholders to influence the behavior public corporations in America. The first student note examines business to business rate setting by formal rulemaking and argues that The Copyright Royalty and Distribution Reform Act of 2004 created an ineffective administrative system for determining copyright royalty rates. Finally, the second student note compares title protection procedures for residential real estate in the United States and Europe and discusses how the different procedures are the result of each region's unique historical development.

More detailed summaries below, as well as links to respond. What will you contribute? Responses will be published in our online pocket part on a rolling basis.