Washington Law Review, Index, Volume 92, 2017

Consists of indexes by author, title, and subject

Electrotransfer of Different Control Plasmids Elicits Different Antitumor Effectiveness in B16.F10 Melanoma

Several studies have shown that different control plasmids may cause antitumor action in different murine tumor models after gene electrotransfer (GET). Due to the differences in GET protocols, plasmid vectors, and experimental models, the observed antitumor effects were incomparable. Therefore, the current study was conducted comparing antitumor effectiveness of three different control plasmids using the same GET parameters. We followed cytotoxicity in vitro and the antitumor effect in vivo after GET of control plasmids pControl, pENTR/U6 scr and pVAX1 in B16.F10 murine melanoma cells and tumors. Types of cell death and upregulation of selected cytosolic DNA sensors and cytokines were determined. GET of all three plasmids caused significant growth delay in melanoma tumors; nevertheless, the effect of pVAX1 was significantly greater than pControl. While DNA sensors in vivo were not upregulated significantly, cytokines IFN beta and TNF α were upregulated after GET of pVAX1. In vitro, the mRNAs of some cytosolic DNA sensors were overexpressed after GET; however, with no significant difference among the three plasmids. In summary, although differences in antitumor effects were observed among control plasmids in vivo, no differences in cellular responses to plasmid GET were detected in tumor cells in vitro. Thus, the tumor microenvironment as well as some plasmid properties are most probably responsible for the antitumor effectiveness

Brief for Urska Velikonja and Joseph A. Grundfest as Amici Curiae in Support of Neither Party in Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130 (U.S. Supreme Court)

The amicus brief takes no position on the merits of this case and expresses no view as to its resolution. Instead, we write exclusively to address two empirical questions raised by the debate over the Commission’s reliance on administrative enforcement of the federal securities laws. First, is there statistically reliable evidence that ALJs systematically resolve cases in a manner that differs from the resolution of equivalent Commission actions filed in federal district court? Second, has the Commission steered a disproportionate share of contested proceedings to ALJs because the Commission is more likely to prevail before those ALJs? The amicus brief reports on the findings of an empirical analysis that examines every enforcement action filed by the SEC from the beginning of fiscal year 2007 through September 30, 2017, the end of the SEC’s 2017 fiscal year, and resolved prior to January 1, 2018. Contrary to the suggestions that appear in the press and are cited in the briefing, there is no statistically reliable evidence that the Commission has a “home court” advantage before ALJs. We also find that the SEC has continued to litigate a large majority of contested proceedings in federal district court, and not before its ALJs. There is no statistically reliable evidence that the Commission is steering a disproportionate share of litigation to the administrative forum in order to capitalize on this non-existent advantage

Analysis of red wine phenolics: Comparison of HPLC and spectrophotometric methods

A recently developed ion-pair normal phase HPLC method which allows a precise chromatographic evaluation of the whole class of high-molecular-mass phenolics of wine was used in order to check the performance of spectrophotometric methods. Thirty-two monovarietal red wines (vintages 1993 and 1998) were analysed for total high-molecular-mass phenolics, proanthocyanidins with 2-4 units, and proanthocyanidins formed by 5 or more units, by means of the normal phase HPLC method. In addition the following spectrophotometric assays were performed: total phenols by Folin-Ciocalteu, Bate-Smith transformation of proanthocyanidins into cyanidin and catechins and proanthocyanidins reactive to vanillin.

Antibodies for immunolabeling by light and electron microscopy : not for the faint hearted

Reliable antibodies represent crucial tools in the arsenal of the cell biologist and using them to localize antigens for immunocytochemistry is one of their most important applications. However, antibody-antigen interactions are much more complex and unpredictable than suggested by the old 'lock and key' analogy, and the goal of trying to prove that an antibody is specific is far more difficult than is generally appreciated. Here, we discuss the problems associated with the very complicated issue of trying to establish that an antibody (and the results obtained with it) is specific for the immunolabeling approaches used in light or electron microscopy. We discuss the increasing awareness that significant numbers of commercial antibodies are often not up to the quality required. We provide guidelines for choosing and testing antibodies in immuno-EM. Finally, we describe how quantitative EM methods can be used to identify reproducible patterns of antibody labeling and also extract specific labeling distributions.Peer reviewe

Introduction: Administrative Lawmaking in the Twenty-First Century

It is always hard to map a river while sailing midstream, but the current state of administrative law is particularly resistant to neat tracing. Until the past few years, administrative law and scholarship was marked by pragmatic compromise: judicial deference on questions of law (but not too much and not all the time) and freedom for agencies on questions of politics and policy (but not to an unseemly degree). There was disagreement around the edges—and some voices in the wilderness calling for radical change—but they operated within a shared framework of admittedly unstated, and perhaps conflicting, assumptions about the administrative state and the rule of law Today, there is a sense that this pragmatic consensus is becoming unstable. Critics of the administrative state and its constitutional legitimacy seek a return to an original settlement of limited, separated powers. At the other end of the spectrum, scholars who applaud lawyers’ retreat from interfering with administrative governance call for a more complete abnegation. In between these poles lies uncertainty or fresh attempts to bolster a center that threatens no longer to hold. With so much in administrative law and theory up for grabs, the Notre Dame Law Review’s Symposium “Administrative Lawmaking in the Twenty-First Century” could not be timelier

Accountability for Nonenforcement

Changes in enforcement can move in more than one direction: enforcement can increase significantly as the Securities and Exchange Commission saw in the aftermath of the accounting scandals or the Madoff Ponzi scheme, and decrease precipitously, as evidenced at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under Acting Director Mick Mulvaney. There is no reason in constitutional or administrative law to treat changes in enforcement policy differently depending on whether enforcement increases or decreases. Policy choices raise similar questions about reviewability and accountability, regardless of whether they increase or decrease enforcement. They also raise symmetrical questions about fair notice and due process and about the separation of powers. We demand that agencies give reasons for changes in rules; reason giving seems appropriate for significant shifts in enforcement, in order to match given reasons with observed enforcement practices, and to subject those reasons to political scrutiny through media coverage and congressional attention, even when judicial review is not available or appropriate

Team Production and Securities Laws

In the seminal paper that this symposium celebrates, A Team Production Theory of Corporate Law, Margaret Blair and Lynn Stout made two related points. First, that Delaware law does not require shareholder primacy in public corporations. Rather, the broad deference afforded to the decisions of predominantly independent corporate boards of directors is consistent with a contrary theory, that of team production, or, as they call it, “the mediating hierarch” theory. The fundamental role of the board of directors is to mediate between the interests of various stakeholders that contribute to the corporation’s output. As a result, Delaware courts have repeatedly authorized board decisions that further the interests of stakeholders at the expense of shareholders’ short-term interests, so long as directors are pursuing the long-term interests of the corporation. Second, Blair and Stout assert that such an arrangement is more efficient than narrow shareholder primacy. Board decisions are protected by the business judgment rule, which allows and enables the board, without risk of liability, to further the interests of stakeholders because that increases overall social welfare. Blair and Stout’s positive and normative assessments that team production is a better fit with Delaware corporate law, and likely more efficient, are convincing. In my brief contribution, I draw on a closely related area of law—securities regulation—to make two related points. First, unlike corporate law, securities regulation can be described as requiring shareholder primacy, or at least investor primacy. This is important because securities compliance takes up more of directors’ and officers’ time than compliance with corporate law, and thus likely influences and informs their day-to-day decisionmaking to a greater degree than does corporate law. If so, perhaps the persistent dominance of shareholder primacy in corporate governance should not be surprising. Second, investor primacy in securities regulation and enforcement may produce efficient results for most securities activities, but produces suboptimal compliance and enforcement for the most heavily litigated and debated category of securities misconduct: accounting fraud. Empirical evidence on the economic consequences of fraudulent financial reporting suggests that the exclusive focus on shareholders is misplaced