April Carroll v. Comprehensive Healthcare Management Services LLC

USDC for the Western District of Pennsylvani

The Missing T in ESG

Environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) philosophy is the zeitgeist of our time. The rise of ESG investments came against the perceived failure of the government to adequately promote socially important goals. And so, corporations are now being praised and credited for stepping up where the government has fallen short. In this Essay, we contend that the standard narrative of ESG suffers from a major flaw. The reason for this discrepancy is taxes. The companies that are widely perceived as saviors of the ESG era are in fact the cause of some of the main deficiencies ESG seeks to redress. Astoundingly, public corporations—many of which have the highest ESG scores and are the largest recipients of ESG fund investments—are also the biggest tax avoiders. As this Essay shows, through the exploitation of legal loopholes and other grey areas, these companies increasingly deprive governments of the funding needed for the provision of public goods and the promotion of important societal policies, exacerbating administrative inefficiencies and deepening societal inequality—outcomes that are starkly at odds with ESG principles. To address this paradox, this Essay advocates incorporating tax-avoidance behavior into ESG ratings. It also argues that tax considerations should be accorded considerable weight not only by ESG rating agencies but also by institutional investors who shoulder part of the fault for the existing state of affairs. Implementation of this proposal would not only rectify incongruities within ESG investment but also provide the public with a more robust and accurate representation of a company’s genuine ESG standing

OWL CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC. v. TIMMONS

In this holdover-non-primary residence case, the court determined that the tenant\u27s brother, who resided in the premises since 2015, established succession rights despite the tenant\u27s permanent vacatur. The court applied recent legislative amendments to define permanent vacatur and credited brother\u27s testimony despite a lack of documentation. His continuous occupancy and credible testimony prevailed over the landlord\u27s claims, resulting in the case being dismissed in favor of the tenant. The court held that the new statutory definition of permanent vacatur provided in RSC § 2523.5(b)(2) applies, and notes that this provision overrules the prior rule on determining permanent vacatur in the First Department, stated in Third Lenox Terrace Assoc. v. Edwards, 91 AD3d 532 (1st Dept 2012), which no longer applies

The Constitutional Meaning of Financial Terms

The Constitution has sixty-three financial terms. These financial terms include, for instance, “compensation,” “expenditures,” “debt,” “coin,” “revenue,” “securities,” and “bankruptcies”—all of which determine the elementary building blocks of our governmental makeup. When the Supreme Court interprets the meaning of these financial terms, it does so in isolation and without a consistent framework. This Article proposes a unified framework for the interpretation of financial terms in the Constitution, comprising of two fundamental canons of construction. First, this Article proposes that all financial terms in the Constitution should be interpreted with fiscal and monetary neutrality—interpreting financial terms in a way that does not favor one kind of economic policy over another. The Supreme Court is not the right institution to manage the economy, as it lacks the expertise to do so. Moreover, fiscal and monetary policy are governmental objects that were intended to be governed by, and are best left to, the political process. The Supreme Court should thus interpret all financial terms in the Constitution in a manner that will leave fiscal and monetary policy open for implementation by either the legislative and executive branches, or the various states, as appropriate. Second, this Article proposes that if the Supreme Court is able to avoid deciding the meaning of a constitutional financial term, and, instead, decide the relevant case on another basis (such as either federal or state law, or procedural grounds), it should do so. In other words, the Supreme Court should invoke the constitutional avoidance doctrine when facing a constitutional financial term. Together, fiscal and monetary neutrality, coupled with the constitutional avoidance doctrine, provides a consistent framework for the Supreme Court’s treatment of financial terms that serves both the intended meaning of these terms and their continued utility in today’s modern economy

The Humanization of War Reparations: Combatant Deaths and Compensation in Unlawful Wars

Recent events have sparked a renewed interest in the law and practice of war reparations. While today it is uncontroversial that unlawful uses of force, including acts of aggression, entail the obligation of the wrongdoing state to make reparations, including by way of compensation, the precise extent of this obligation remains subject to debate. One particularly contentious aspect is whether, and to what extent, states that violate the prohibition on the use of force are obligated to pay compensation not only for harm caused to civilians and civilian objects, but also for damage caused to the armed forces of the defending state. In this article, we demonstrate that states that engage in unlawful uses of force are indeed obligated to provide compensation for this type of harm. However, we also explain how issues of causation, evidentiary standards, and the financial capacity of the wrongdoing state may in some cases limit the scope of such claims. Moreover, we demonstrate that compensating combatants is not only doctrinally sound but also normatively desirable as it highlights their role as the core victims of unlawful wars. Finally, we elaborate on some of the consequences of this conclusion, including in relation to the individualization of reparation claims, the moral and legal equality of combatants, as well as the normative principles underlying international humanitarian law (“IHL”)

Review of Teri McMurtry-Chubb, Race Unequals: Overseer Contracts, White Masculinities, and the Formation of Managerial Identity in the Plantation Economy (Lexington Books, 2021)

In academic studies of the southern plantation, the overseer is often portrayed in simple terms as a lower-class white male who did not himself own land or enslaved persons. Departing from these one-dimensional descriptions, McMurtry-Chubb illustrates the plantation overseer in a much more granular way. In this lucid and engaging monograph, she shows how public and private law helped construct the overseer’s masculine identity in a way that both elevated the social status of elite planter males, and lowered the status of the enslaved people the overseer managed. The overseer’s performance of masculinity was assigned a value (lower than the planter, higher than the enslaved) “based on the imperatives of capitalist and white supremacist structures” (xiii)—another iteration of Du Bois’s critical concept of the “wage of whiteness” and its tendency to undermine class consciousness

Core International Crimes Evidence Database

Core International Crimes Evidence Database (CICED) is a unique, tailor-made judicial database set up by Eurojust to preserve, analyze and store evidence of core international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes). CICED enables the Agency to support national judicial authorities in identifying evidence located in another country that may be relevant to their own investigation. This evidence can be used to corroborate individual offences and events or to unveil systematic actions and provide contextual information

Show Me the Green: The Battle for Investor Trust in ESG Funds

Environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) funds enable earnest investors to align their money with their values. Some believe that ESG funds can promote a more sustainable and just economy by encouraging companies to adopt better practices and by divesting from those that do not. Others expect that funds with limited carbon exposure will outperform as climate change imposes regulatory and financial risks on carbon-intensive industries. Research suggests that younger investors overwhelmingly support the idea behind ESG investing; one-third even report a willingness to forgo 10 percent or more of their retirement savings to protect the environment. Unfortunately, ESG products also stoke cynicism. While some funds may live up to their name, others may co-opt trendy labels as a marketing ploy to charge higher fees—a tactic now commonly referred to as “greenwashing.” In addition to misleading investors, greenwashing has the power to erode faith in the ESG movement. Legitimate offerings can quickly become contaminated by those seeking to make a quick buck. To address this harm, in May 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) set forth two proposals to enhance transparency in registered funds using ESG-like branding: an enhanced disclosure rule and an amendment to the “Names Rule.” The latter proposal, adopted in September 2023, requires ESG funds to invest 80 percent of their assets “in accordance with the investment focus that the fund’s name suggests.” This Note takes the position that the Names Rule amendment furthers the SEC’s mission of investor protection but requires additional guardrails to adapt adequately to the complexities of ESG funds

Consumer Law for Gen Z Law Students

Whether they are consumers, representing consumers, or advising clients dealing with consumers, law school graduates will inevitably confront numerous consumer law issues. Moreover, most students entering law school are members of Generation Z and face a new wave of consumer laws arising from the 2007–2009 recession and the rapid growth of new technologies. Clickwrap agreements, email spoofing, cybercrimes, cryptocurrencies, fintech, identity theft, online disparagement, data privacy, artificial intelligence, robocalling, and autonomous vehicles are among the evolving topics in modern consumer law. Despite the growth in consumer law concerns, many law students have limited access to consumer law options, with almost 40% of law schools not offering any consumer law courses and less than 30% hosting consumer law clinics. Even where classes are taught, they are often not available annually