Zahir Rahman Deputy General Counsel, LV Raiders

Wednesday, March 6, 2024 | 12:30 PM | Biolchini Hall of Law, Room 1310 Join the conversation with Zahir Rahman, VP and Deputy GC for the Las Vegas Raiders. Zahir is fresh off hosting the Super Bowl and will share his career path and roles and responsibilities with students. Lunch will be provided. Co-sponsors: Sports Communications & Entertainment Law Forum Asian Pacific American Law Students Associationhttps://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndls_posters/1819/thumbnail.jp

Leveraging Information Forcing in Good Faith

Leveraging Information Forcing in Good Faith, a chapter in Research Handbook on Law and Time, argues that the information-forcing-substance theory has a significant role to play both in how courts decide duty of good faith and oversight matters and in how active and engaged directors can add value in the boardroom. As explored in the chapter, by deploying the theory in corporate-law matters, the courts can reveal the information gaps between officers and directors and create pressure for better processes and discourse within the corporation. In turn, this can impact both the way in which fiduciaries interact with each other and on behalf of shareholders, as well as the substantive choices they make. This chapter uses case studies involving Boeing and McDonald’s to reveal how judges can use information forcing to develop more robust disclosure discourse in the good faith and oversight context and increase the creative friction vital to effective corporate governance. The chapter focuses first on how the evolution of the corporate form and the laws supporting it have impacted the growth of the law in the corporate fiduciary duty space, and the impact of the procedural posture and timing of litigation on the understanding of the duty. The chapter utilizes case studies based on the McDonald’s and Boeing litigation in Delaware, and examines them through the lens of the information-forcing-substance theory from federal securities regulation. The case studies illuminate how the courts have already used information-forcing-substance theory in practice (although not calling it by that name) to drive additional discourse within the board room and between directors and officers. The chapter, however, also highlights how the moment in time nature of the opinions and the procedural posture of litigation can stunt the growth of positive law for the duty of good faith and oversight. The chapter then explores how courts can further apply the theory to ensure that oversight actually occurs through more information forcing, disclosure, and discourse for directors and officers

Chad Batterman v. Christopher Mallios

USDC for the Eastern District of Pennsylvani

Terry Dor v. TD Bank

USDC for the District of New Jerse

Introducing Biosimilar Competition for Cell and Gene Therapy Products

This article provides an early analysis of the potential for creating future biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapies (CGTs) to lower prices and improve patient access, building on a unique set of interviews with relevant experts. Our discussion addressed regulatory, manufacturing, intellectual property, and market size challenges. Due to CGTs’ complexity, meeting the regulatory requirement of ‘high similarity with no clinically meaningful differences’ will be difficult. Gene therapies are likely better candidates for biosimilar development than cell therapies. Biosimilarity should be met when gene therapy biosimilars contain the same genetic sequence as a reference product, and the variability in the vector meets the high similarity standard. Manufacturing challenges, including the lack of standardized platforms, high production costs, and complexity, pose significant obstacles. It may also be important to demonstrate biosimilarity within the manufacturing process. Intellectual property barriers, specifically patenting, trade secrecy, and regulatory exclusivity, could hinder biosimilars’ ability to gain market share, although recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the breadth of patent claims could ease barriers to future CGT competition, including from biosimilars. Finally, inadequate market sizes might create hurdles, especially for curative treatments, as patient pools shrink following treatment by the reference CGT

Imminence Should Not Be a Controlling Factor in the Duress Defense in the Context of Battered Women

Domestic violence is a silent killer that attacks quickly. This Note specifically discusses the Battered Woman Syndrome and the need to explore the current laws that “protect” this group. Current laws in a majority of states create a barrier that blocks battered women from obtaining the justice that should be given to all citizens. When the abused woman is at an impasse in her relationship, she may be forced to make a life-or-death decision. More likely than not, the result becomes the worst possible outcome. Domestic violence continues to be higher amongst women than men, where women are emotionally, as well as physically, withdrawn due to the abuse. This Note considers the various possibilities that may be taken by the different levels of government. More importantly, each state legislature can ensure safety by removing the cruel measures that battered women face. This would therefore change the assessment of who the true victim is in self-defense scenarios. New York is one of the leading examples of states moving with a sense of urgency while maintaining the other aspects of criminal laws. This Note does not ask for battered women to not pay for the crimes they commit. Rather, this Note brings awareness to the issues that occur in the courtroom and a solution by allowing this vulnerable group to rehabilitate while getting a fair trial. The fair trial begins with a change in our policies to lessen the strict scrutiny that duress or self-defense claims require. Put simply, imminence should no longer be a controlling factor

Calculating the Harms of Political Use of Popular Music

When Donald Trump descended the escalator of Trump Tower to announce his 2016 presidential bid, Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” blared from the loudspeakers. Almost immediately, Young’s management made clear that the campaign’s use of the song was unauthorized. Neil Young was not alone. Trump drew similar objections from dozens of artists during his first two presidential bids. But as a matter of copyright law, it is unclear whether artists can prevent their songs from being played at campaign rallies. Putting the intricacies of copyright licensing aside, what motivates artists to object to the use of their songs by political campaigns? This Article identifies and measures three types of harm artists may reasonably fear. First, an artist may worry that campaign use of their song will harm its market value and popularity. To test that theory, we examine a novel set of industry streaming data to identify any meaningful shifts in streaming consumption after well-publicized campaign uses. Second, campaign use may falsely lead the public to believe that an artist supports or endorses a candidate. And third, an artist may fear a tarnishment effect. That is, consumers may negatively associate the artist or their music with an unpopular candidate even in the absence of any perceived endorsement. We test the endorsement and tarnishment theories through an experimental design that measures consumer reactions to a set of hypothetical campaign uses. Our data paint a complicated picture. We find some evidence that songs used by the Trump campaign suffered a drop in streaming consumption, but we cannot conclude that campaign use drove that reduced popularity. We also find strong evidence that an artist’s perceived support or endorsement of a candidate is material to consumers. But consumers do not appear to infer that an artist endorses a candidate when their campaign uses that artist’s song. Finally, we found that less well-established artists are most likely to suffer from tarnishing associations when their songs are used by divisive politicians. Our results do not fully resolve the thorny doctrinal and normative questions at the heart of these controversies, but they do offer a crucial empirical grounding for a recurring policy debate

USA v. Anthony D\\u27Ambrosio

USDC for the Middle District of Pennsylvani

Justin De La Cruz Martinez v. Superior Court of Pennsylvania

USDC for the Western District of Pennsylvani