Credit Rating Agency Review Board: The Challenges and Implications of Implementing the Franken-Wicker Amendment to Dodd-Frank

The purpose of this paper is to analyze, critically review, and determine whether a hypothetical credit rating agency board, as suggested in the Franken-Wicker Amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, is a viable option for combating the conflict of interest problem between credit rating agencies and issuers. Research methodology includes a careful review of various ways to structure the board and the potential unintended consequences of doing so. The Author uses original research hand-collected from video of the Credit Ratings Roundtable conducted in Washington D.C. on May 14, 2013. The Credit Ratings Roundtable brought together experts from the credit rating industry and government to discuss the viability of a credit rating agency board. After reviewing the research, the paper concludes, while the credit rating agency board will be difficult to implement and may have various negative unintended consequences, it is currently the best option available to break the conflict of interest

Off with His Head: The King Can Do No Wrong, Hurricane Katrina, and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet

Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to provide a legal remedy to citizens for torts committed by the Federal Government. Prior to the act, United States citizens were mostly prohibited from filing suits against the government for torts committed by government employees. However, Congress when passing the act realized that some government actions are the result of considered policy judgment for what is in the best interest of the citizenry as a whole. In order to prevent the government from being sued for such actions, Congress included what is referred to as the Discretionary Function Exception. If a government employee’s action falls within the parameters of the Discretionary Function Exception the government is immune from tort liability. This Article argues that courts have interpreted the Discretionary Function too broadly such that it now excuses the government from egregious unjustifiable harms to the American public. The Article explores this topic using a recent example in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a confused opinion, denied relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Even though the Army Corps of Engineers—who is responsible for a navigational canal found to be the cause of multiple levee breaches—admitted wrongdoing, the Fifth Circuit used the broad application of the Discretionary Function Exception to deny liability for the government. After reviewing the jurisprudential history of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Article argues that a doctrinal application of the Discretionary Function Exception should find that the government is not immune from liability. Finally, the Article reviews the purposes and policy justifications for tort law and concludes that the only just result in the Hurricane Katrina case is a finding of liability

Off with His Head: The King Can Do No Wrong, Hurricane Katrina, and the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet

Congress passed the Federal Tort Claims Act in 1946 to provide a legal remedy to citizens for torts committed by the Federal Government. Prior to the act, United States citizens were mostly prohibited from filing suits against the government for torts committed by government employees. However, Congress when passing the act realized that some government actions are the result of considered policy judgment for what is in the best interest of the citizenry as a whole. In order to prevent the government from being sued for such actions, Congress included what is referred to as the Discretionary Function Exception. If a government employee’s action falls within the parameters of the Discretionary Function Exception the government is immune from tort liability. This Article argues that courts have interpreted the Discretionary Function too broadly such that it now excuses the government from egregious unjustifiable harms to the American public. The Article explores this topic using a recent example in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a confused opinion, denied relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Even though the Army Corps of Engineers—who is responsible for a navigational canal found to be the cause of multiple levee breaches—admitted wrongdoing, the Fifth Circuit used the broad application of the Discretionary Function Exception to deny liability for the government. After reviewing the jurisprudential history of the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Article argues that a doctrinal application of the Discretionary Function Exception should find that the government is not immune from liability. Finally, the Article reviews the purposes and policy justifications for tort law and concludes that the only just result in the Hurricane Katrina case is a finding of liability

Prospective Study of Blunt Aortic Injury: Multicenter Trial of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Blunt aortic injury is a major cause of death from blunt trauma. Evolution of diagnostic techniques and methods of operative repair have altered the management and posed new questions in recent years. METHODS: This study was a prospectively conducted multi-center trial involving 50 trauma centers in North America under the direction of the Multi-institutional Trial Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. RESULTS: There were 274 blunt aortic injury cases studied over 2.5 years, of which 81% were caused by automobile crashes. Chest computed tomography and transesophageal echocardiography were applied in 88 and 30 cases, respectively, and were 75 and 80% diagnostic, respectively. Two hundred seven stable patients underwent planned thoracotomy and repair. Clamp and sew technique was used in 73 (35%) and bypass techniques in 134 (65%). Overall mortality was 31%, with 63% of deaths being attributable to aortic rupture; mortality was not affected by method of repair. Paraplegia occurred postoperatively in 8.7%. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated clamp and sew (p = 0.002) and aortic cross clamp time of \u3e or = 30 minutes (p = 0.01) to be associated with development of postoperative paraplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Rupture after hospital admission remains a major problem. Although newer diagnostic techniques are being applied, at this time aortography remains the diagnostic standard. Aortic cross clamp time beyond 30 minutes was associated with paraplegia; bypass techniques, which provide distal aortic perfusion, produced significantly lower paraplegia rates than the clamp and sew approach

Prospective Study of Blunt Aortic Injury: Multicenter Trial of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Blunt aortic injury is a major cause of death from blunt trauma. Evolution of diagnostic techniques and methods of operative repair have altered the management and posed new questions in recent years. METHODS: This study was a prospectively conducted multi-center trial involving 50 trauma centers in North America under the direction of the Multi-institutional Trial Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. RESULTS: There were 274 blunt aortic injury cases studied over 2.5 years, of which 81% were caused by automobile crashes. Chest computed tomography and transesophageal echocardiography were applied in 88 and 30 cases, respectively, and were 75 and 80% diagnostic, respectively. Two hundred seven stable patients underwent planned thoracotomy and repair. Clamp and sew technique was used in 73 (35%) and bypass techniques in 134 (65%). Overall mortality was 31%, with 63% of deaths being attributable to aortic rupture; mortality was not affected by method of repair. Paraplegia occurred postoperatively in 8.7%. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated clamp and sew (p = 0.002) and aortic cross clamp time of \u3e or = 30 minutes (p = 0.01) to be associated with development of postoperative paraplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Rupture after hospital admission remains a major problem. Although newer diagnostic techniques are being applied, at this time aortography remains the diagnostic standard. Aortic cross clamp time beyond 30 minutes was associated with paraplegia; bypass techniques, which provide distal aortic perfusion, produced significantly lower paraplegia rates than the clamp and sew approach