Welcome Back (Spring 2016)

Welcome Back Poster, Instagram, and Digital Display from Mugar Greene Scholars' Seasonal Campaign for the end of Spring Break

The NLRB\u27s Purple Communications Decision: Email, Property, and the Changing Patterns of Industrial Life

On December 11th, 2014, in a much-anticipated case, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held in a 3-2 decision that employees with access to an employer’s email system had a presumptive right to use that email system during non-working time under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). In an attempt to adapt to the “changing patterns of industrial life,” the NLRB reversed a seven-year precedent by overturning In re Guard Publ\u27g Co., 351 N.L.R.B. 1110 (2007), and thereby gave employees the statutory right to use employer email systems for non-business purposes. This issue brief argues that the majority opinion in Purple Commc\u27ns, Inc., 361 N.L.R.B. No. 126 (2014) erroneously presumed that a ban on employer email systems interfered with employees’ rights to engage in concerted activities under Section 7. In reality, the influx of alternative avenues of communication, such as smartphones, social media, and tablets, have substantially grown for employees over the past several years, thus strengthening employees’ Section 7 rights. The new framework set forth in Purple Communications not only exaggerates the need for employees to exercise their Section 7 rights by using a company’s email system, but also unfairly burdens an employer’s resources, time, and energy in implementing such access. For these reasons, the rule in Purple Communications is unworkable and the prior Register Guard standard should still apply

Free speech paradox poster

Free speech poster designed by Mugar Greene Scholars with quote by Herbert Hoover: "It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own.

Evasion and Flowback in the Regulation S Era: Strengthening U.S. Investor Protection While Promoting U.S. Corporate Offshore Offerings

This Note examines whether the structure of Regulation S has caused increased flowback of unregistered securities into the United States. Part I discusses the development of the offshore capital markets and the registration requirements of the Securities Act. Part I also details the evolution of the SEC\u27s application of the Securities Act registration requirements to international securities sales, and summarizes Regulation S. Part II discusses the benefits to issuers of using Regulation S, and the effect that Regulation S has had on U.S. corporate participation in the offshore markets. Part II also analyzes the threat that flowback poses to the Securities Act disclosure requirements, and examines the mechanisms through which unregistered securities flow back into the United States. Part III argues that neither SEC enforcement efforts, nor the currently extant private remedy, can effectively curtail the flowback problem caused by Regulation S. In addition, Part III provides recommendations for amending Regulation S to ensure greater protection for U.S. investors and greater certainty for U.S. issuers in offshore transactions. This Note concludes that the SEC should revisit Regulation S in order achieve a workable balance between access for issuers and protection for investors