24 research outputs found

    Appropriate Regulation of Antibiotics in Livestock Feed

    Get PDF
    For decades, antibiotics have been widely used, saving lives and reducing suffering. Such drugs are routinely employed among both human and farm animal populations. However, scientific data now links the use of antibiotics at subtherapeutic levels in livestock feed to the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria in the human population. After examining the current research, this Article concludes that despite short-term economic benefits associated with the widespread use of antibiotics in agriculture, the risk to human health justifies a change in policy. This Article recommends a number of steps to minimize the spread of antibiotic resistance. The primary changes would be to phase out the use of antibiotics as livestock feed additives, and to refuse to approve new drugs for this purpose. In either instance, this use would be permissible if the drug sponsor provides convincing evidence that the agricultural use of its particular antibiotic presents no appreciable risk to human health

    Why Arkansas Should Adopt the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act

    Get PDF
    In 1993 The Small Business Entity Tax Pass Through Act for the first time authorized the organization of limited liability companies (LLCs) in Arkansas. This Act, which will be referred to in this article as the Arkansas LLC Act notwithstanding its unique actual name, has been subsequently amended more than once to remove some of the ambiguities created by the initial legislation. In August 1994, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) promulgated a Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (ULLCA). Unfortunately for proponents of uniformity, the ULLCA was introduced after most states (including Arkansas) had already enacted LLC legislation, and the statute never gained the prominence achieved by many other uniform business statutes promulgated by NCCUSL. In 2003, NCCUSL initiated a project to amend and update ULLCA, a project that has often been referred to as the ReUCCLA or RULLCA. This article begins with a review of the current state of law relative to Arkansas LLCs, with a particular focus on potentially problematic provisions in our existing statute. It then provides a general overview of RULLCA, with emphasis on points of similarity and incongruence with our existing LLC Act. Finally, it offers reasons why RULLCA offers advantages that justify the adoption of yet another new business statute in this state

    Neither a Borrower nor a Lender Be: Analyzing the SEC’s Reaction to Crypto Lending

    Get PDF
    In June 2021, the largest U.S.-based crypto exchange, Coinbase, announced plans to allow its customers to earn 4% interest on deposits of certain cryptoassets through a new “Coinbase Lend” program. Despite a positive reaction from its customers, on September 7, 2021, Coinbase announced it had received a notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the effect that the Commission had preliminarily concluded that the proposed Lend program was a security and that Coinbase would be in violation of the federal securities laws if it proceeded. The threat of enforcement caused Coinbase to terminate the program. Shortly thereafter, in the wake of several state enforcement actions, the SEC also announced a settlement with BlockFi that terminated its crypto lending program in the U.S. Neither of these actions conclusively explained the test that the SEC was using to determine when a crypto lending program involves the issuance of a security. This article considers the appropriate test for evaluating crypto lending programs and concludes that in many cases, the appropriate test should look at whether there are “notes” that fit within the definition of security. This article suggests that the SEC is applying the federal securities laws too broadly without offering sufficient explanation for its interpretations and that the Coinbase Lend program in particular should not have been shuttered. The article concludes that continuing regulatory uncertainty as to the scope of the federal securities laws is depriving U.S. citizens of potentially valuable opportunities

    The Case for Preempting State Money Transmission Laws for Crypto-Based Businesses

    Get PDF
    Few industries are evolving as rapidly or as dramatically as those involving payment systems. The recent advent and spread of cryptocurrencies and associated trading platforms and exchanges, as well as ongoing improvements and innovations in FinTech generally, ensure that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future. Along with this rapid change has come a dynamic increase in the number and range of payment startups, a development that has been recognized as likely to redound to the benefit of consumers and the broader economy. The problem is simply that regulation is not keeping up with innovation

    Critiquing the SEC\u27s Ongoing Efforts to Regulate Crypto Exchanges

    Full text link
    Despite the so-called “Crypto Winter” in the spring of 2022, which saw a deep plunge in global crypto markets, interest in the appropriate way to develop, use, and regulate cryptoassets and crypto-based businesses continues to be high. In the United States, a Presidential Executive Order and multiple bills that seek to tackle various issues of crypto regulation are regularly highlighted in the news, suggesting the appropriate treatment of crypto is a growing national priority. Despite these discussions, which tend to focus on finding a balanced way to regulate those within the industry without stifling the technology, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) continues to seek to assert its jurisdiction unilaterally. A pending proposal from the SEC, misleadingly characterized as an attempt to regulate trading in government securities, would broaden the definition of “exchange” with potentially destructive consequences. This Article carefully considers the existing definition of “exchange” under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ’34 Act), and then examines a proposal from the Commission that would substantially broaden the current interpretation to reach a much larger group of persons involved in trading cryptoassets without adding clarity or a path to compliant operation for such persons. It then evaluates why the proposal creates problems, identifying a number of such issues before concluding that a better approach would be to allow the legislative process to play out

    Political Reality and Crypto Regulation

    Get PDF
    This Article compares and contrasts the SEC’s and CFTC’s approach to crypto regulation, as impacted by their respective missions and scope of authority. It then considers some of the largest gaps in the current regulatory system as it applies to cryptoassets. In light of that information, the Article then looks at three of the most widely discussed legislative proposals for regulatory reform and considers the potential impact of such legislative intervention. The conclusion of the Article is that some expansion of CFTC authority may be necessary and desirable, but political realities are likely to dictate small, incremental steps towards broader reforms that are unlikely to be achievable in the short term. The first step towards regulation might even be outside the remit of either the SEC or CFTC, and it might be limited to stablecoins—a narrow class of cryptoasset that has been particularly problematic for regulators. However, the bills currently before Congress have problems that will need to be addressed in order to make progress in crypto regulation, no matter how important, a reality