Assignments for the Benefit of Creditors as an Alternative to Bankruptcy Proceedings

Many companies intending to close benefit from going through a formal dissolution procedure. The simplest method is to dissolve under state law, which can be done internally by the officers and directors or other responsible people in charge of the business. Dissolution under state law is a preferred method for companies without complicated debt structures or significant remaining assets. Instead of going through a dissolution handled internally by the company decision makers, companies may also consider retaining a third-party fiduciary who can notify creditors that the company has ceased doing business, sell any remaining assets, and distribute the proceeds to creditors. Involving a disinterested, professional third party with a duty to maximize returns to creditors provides legitimacy and optics to the process. The option involving a disinterested third-party in the dissolution of a business that most CEOs consider first is bankruptcy. However, bankruptcy has limitations that make it less attractive for certain debtors and creditors. Most states have adopted statutes governing assignments for the benefit of creditors, which is a process utilizing state courts and state law as an alternative to federal bankruptcy law. In most states the statutes have not been substantively updated in decades and are not regularly implemented. The article recommends that assignments for the benefit of creditors be more widely adapted and applied in jurisdictions where they are under-utilized, to allow debtors to address their creditors’ needs. The article provides a model statute that could be adopted in multiple states that do not have a well-developed statute concerning assignments for the benefit of creditors

Juris Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Machines

Despite a surplus of practicing attorneys, millions of Americans experience inadequate legal representation, demonstrating deep inefficiencies in the market for legal services. This paper explores the potential for artificial intelligence (“AI”) to expand access to justice by providing efficient and affordable solutions. Free and widely available AI-powered tools, like ChatGPT and Claude, demonstrate the capability to assist non-lawyers in tasks like drafting legal documents, conducting legal research, and resolving disputes. These tools represent a practical and economically efficient way to increase access to legal resources for underserved populations. Still, while AI offers significant promise, clear challenges exist. Issues like hallucinations—instances of AI producing inaccurate information—underscore the risks of relying on these tools without oversight. Additionally, the unique human and social capital that attorneys provide, such as advocacy and trust built through professional relationships, cannot truly be replicated by AI. Other problems, like current consumer protection and fiduciary obligations, further complicate AI’s role in the legal field. This article ultimately concludes that while AI holds transformative potential to reduce barriers and expand access to legal services, achieving this outcome requires thoughtful regulation and continuous innovation to protect consumers and uphold the integrity of the legal system

Getting Help from AI to Update Your Syllabus (Even If You Think It\u27s Just Fine)

Law school faculty often reuse the same syllabi from year to year, assuming that if a course isn\u27t broken, it doesn\u27t need fixing. But with the upcoming NextGen Bar Exam, new lawyer licensing regimes, and the widespread use of artificial intelligence in legal practice, the context for teaching dispute resolution is changing rapidly.This short article encourages faculty to reflect on their syllabi and consider how generative AI tools can support thoughtful, efficient updates. It offers practical strategies for adapting to bar exam and licensing developments, incorporating AI skills into courses, integrating representation and neutral perspectives, and redesigning assignments to enhance student learning. AI tools can help faculty revise their syllabi to help students gain relevant, practical skills. A companion article provides specific guidance on using AI to promote deeper learning, improve student writing

My Pillow or Yours?: Balancing Personal Property Rights and Government Interests

When an individual is involved in a criminal investigation, the government may obtain a valid warrant allowing agents to seize property related to the alleged criminal activity. The government may seize personal property because it is either contraband or evidence of the crime being investigated. The types of property the government can seize are vast, ranging from $65,000 to sixty-five-million-year-old dinosaur bones, to something as personal as an individual’s private cell phone. Ultimately, when the government has a valid warrant to seize property, there is not much an individual can do to prevent the seizure

Vouching for Fair Housing: Landlords’ Duty to Accept Housing Vouchers as Reasonable Accommodations for Handicapped Tenants

Earning enough income to afford housing is challenging. Maintaining a steady job that covers both housing and basic essentials requires significant time and energy. Now, imagine you have a physical disability affecting your mobility. Suddenly, your job options are limited, and your health care costs increase. Now, imagine you suffer from a psychological disability as well. Your health care costs skyrocket because you must pay for medications to alleviate both your physical and psychological disabilities, equipment to assist your mobility, therapy fees, and other essential health care costs. In addition, your already limited job opportunities have again been significantly reduced. Even if you do find a viable job, you continue to suffer from your disabilities every single workday. Your disabilities might even be so constraining that, regardless of whether you want to work, you are incapable of doing so. The already challenging task of affording housing becomes insurmountable

What Shall Be Orthodox in Polarized Times: Overview and Response to Commentators What Shall Be Orthodox in Polarized Times: Overview and Response to Commentators What Shall Be Orthodox in Polarized Times: Overview and Response to Commentators

lf there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. Justice Robert Jackson wrote this celebrated passage in his majority opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), which protected the First Amendment right of Jehovah\u27s Witness children not to participate in a compulsory flag salute in public schools. ln recent years, protests against imposed orthodoxy-usually invoking Barnette-have occurred in a growing number of contexts, often when conservatives resist governmental promotion of public values concerned with equality. Many controversies, like Barnette, concern schools: conflicts over how best to teach U.S. history, civics, and patriotism, and whether state restrictions and mandates on teaching about race, gender, or sexual orientation are unconstitutional. Barnette also features in conservative challenges to state antidiscrimination laws. The children in Barnette, members of a persecuted religious minority, have become the symbol of today\u27s religious and social conservatives, who contend their unpopular dissenting beliefs are threatened by the compelled orthodoxy of hostile majorities

RPS Coach Project: A Growing Library About a Valuable AI Tool

This document collects a growing library of publications, videos, and podcasts about the RPS Negotiation and Mediation Coach (RPS Coach), an AI tool grounded in Real Practice Systems (RPS) Theory. RPS Coach is designed to support mediators, lawyers, parties, educators, students, and scholars by promoting good decision-making and reflective practice in negotiation and mediation. This piece summarizes articles and blog posts that present the theory, knowledge base, and functions of RPS Coach, along with practical guidance for its use in dispute resolution, writing, and legal education. It includes links to each publication and will be updated as new work is published

The Second Bite at the Apple Watch Through the United States Customs and Border Protection: A Further Whittling of Patent Rights Post-eBay

Underlying the patent system is a bargain between the general public and patent owners. In exchange for the limited-time right of the patentee to exclude others from making, using, or selling their patented invention or process, the public receives the benefit of both the disclosure of new and useful inventions and processes and the increased incentive to innovate. The Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision, however, fundamentally changed this bargain by removing the presumption of injunctive relief for patent owners upon a finding of infringement in Article III courts. The Court replaced this presumption with a four-factor test, making it more difficult for patent owners to exclude infringers from their claimed invention or process. The eBay decision led many patent owners to the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), where the four-factor test did not apply