Application of Neurospora crassa in the Treatment of Waste

The nutrient requirements of the fast growing filamentous fungi Neurospora crassa to convert animal waste into an edible product containing high amounts of protein were assessed by selectively excluding nutrients from supplemental solutions of Vogel salts and trace elements added to the waste. When individual chemical components were omitted from the supplemental solutions, varying levels of growth were observed. However, there was no statistically significant difference. Similar results were obtained when groups of selected compounds were omitted from the supplemental solutions. Overall, these results suggest that the nutritional requirements for sustainably growing Neurospora crassa on animal waste may not be as stringent as anticipated. Therefore, commercial implementation of the Neurospora crassa project may be more achievable

The Importance of the Prefiling Phase for Securities-Fraud Litigation

The pleading burden that governs securities-fraud litigation is significantly higher than those standards that govern traditional civil cases. The heightened pleading burden applicable to securities cases has transformed the motion to dismiss into something like summary judgment. In fact, to contend with this heightened pleading burden, plaintiffs typically must spend more time in the prefiling phase gathering sufficient, reliable evidence of securities fraud. With almost two decades of litigation under the securities laws’ heightened pleading burden, empirical studies are revealing that certain kinds of evidence are more likely to defeat a motion to dismiss than others. But dismissal statistics and cases are telling in another respect as well. They reveal that some forms of corroboration (SEC proceedings, accounting restatements, bankruptcies) seem more likely to help stave off dismissal than others (insider trading, inferences from shared experience, and accounts from confidential witnesses). This issue—the effective strategies for investigating and pleading securities-fraud claims—is the subject of this year’s conference sponsored by Loyola University Chicago School of Law’s Institute for Investor Protection

Iowa Farm Size Continues Up!

Farm size in Iowa is increasing in acreage as well as in other dimensions. Here\u27s a look at what\u27s happening and at some of the many reasons and forces- both within and outside of agriculture- behind it

Toward a Just Measure of Repose: The Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud

Statutes of limitations, a long-standing bulwark of civil litigation, mitigate the risk that evidence of meritorious claims will become stale and relieve defendants who might be exposed to claims from unending uncertainty about whether claims will be brought. But these twin rationales are balanced against allowing plaintiffs sufficient time to discover and file meritorious claims. This balance is manifest in the judicial and congressional effort to fashion a statute of limitations for securities fraud claims. The Supreme Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds recently attempted to strike that balance in its interpretation of the statute of limitations for securities fraud claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. But we show that the Court has failed. Merck presents a pleading trap for victims of securities fraud that will preclude the adjudication of meritoriousclaims. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Merck decision exemplifies a much more serious problem with the entire limitations regime for securities fraud. We demonstrate that the discovery provision in that regime should be discarded for a singular statute of repose as the discovery provision unnecessarily precludes meritorious claims without providing any more support for the twin rationales beyond what is already provided by a statute of repose alone. The repose provision by itself reduces the use of stale evidence and litigation uncertainty and it does not unnecessarily preclude meritorious claims. In this sense, our proposal bucks the trend of scholarship addressing the statute of limitations that advocates eliminating limitations periods entirely. We find that insights from behavioral economics and practical realities of market activity justify some measure of repose. Thus, we advocate abolishing the discovery provision in the statute of limitations but keeping the statute of repose

Toward a Just Measure of Repose: The Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud

Statutes of limitations, a long-standing bulwark of civil litigation, mitigate the risk that evidence of meritorious claims will become stale and relieve defendants who might be exposed to claims from unending uncertainty about whether claims will be brought. But these twin rationales are balanced against allowing plaintiffs sufficient time to discover and file meritorious claims. This balance is manifest in the judicial and congressional effort to fashion a statute of limitations for securities fraud claims. The Supreme Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds recently attempted to strike that balance in its interpretation of the statute of limitations for securities fraud claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. But we show that the Court has failed. Merck presents a pleading trap for victims of securities fraud that will preclude the adjudication of meritoriousclaims. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Merck decision exemplifies a much more serious problem with the entire limitations regime for securities fraud. We demonstrate that the discovery provision in that regime should be discarded for a singular statute of repose as the discovery provision unnecessarily precludes meritorious claims without providing any more support for the twin rationales beyond what is already provided by a statute of repose alone. The repose provision by itself reduces the use of stale evidence and litigation uncertainty and it does not unnecessarily preclude meritorious claims. In this sense, our proposal bucks the trend of scholarship addressing the statute of limitations that advocates eliminating limitations periods entirely. We find that insights from behavioral economics and practical realities of market activity justify some measure of repose. Thus, we advocate abolishing the discovery provision in the statute of limitations but keeping the statute of repose

Toward a Just Measure of Repose: The Statute of Limitations for Securities Fraud

Statutes of limitations, a long-standing bulwark of civil litigation, mitigate the risk that evidence of meritorious claims will become stale and relieve defendants who might be exposed to claims from unending uncertainty about whether claims will be brought. But these twin rationales are balanced against allowing plaintiffs sufficient time to discover and file meritorious claims. This balance is manifest in the judicial and congressional effort to fashion a statute of limitations for securities fraud claims. The Supreme Court in Merck & Co. v. Reynolds recently attempted to strike that balance in its interpretation of the statute of limitations for securities fraud claims under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. But we show that the Court has failed. Merck presents a pleading trap for victims of securities fraud that will preclude the adjudication of meritoriousclaims. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Merck decision exemplifies a much more serious problem with the entire limitations regime for securities fraud. We demonstrate that the discovery provision in that regime should be discarded for a singular statute of repose as the discovery provision unnecessarily precludes meritorious claims without providing any more support for the twin rationales beyond what is already provided by a statute of repose alone. The repose provision by itself reduces the use of stale evidence and litigation uncertainty and it does not unnecessarily preclude meritorious claims. In this sense, our proposal bucks the trend of scholarship addressing the statute of limitations that advocates eliminating limitations periods entirely. We find that insights from behavioral economics and practical realities of market activity justify some measure of repose. Thus, we advocate abolishing the discovery provision in the statute of limitations but keeping the statute of repose