Treating internal U.S. conflicts and international conflicts law the same, without distinguishing between them, has always puzzled non-U.S. lawyers and scholars. And nowhere is the question of whether domestic and international conflicts should be treated the same more pressing than in the current work of The American Law Institute.
Corporate Criminal Enforcement in the United States: Using Negotiated Settlements to Turn Potential Corporate Criminals into Corporate CopsJennifer H. Arlen
Corporate criminal enforcement in the United States differs from other countries in three ways. First, the United States can impose criminal liability on corporations in a broader range of cases than other countries. Second, almost all corporate criminal resolutions involving large firms take the form of negotiated settlements. Third, the United States grants prosecutors both more choices and more discretion when resolving criminal cases: prosecutors can enter into guilty pleas or pre-trial diversion agreements (deferred and non-prosecution agreements).
A Personality Theory of Sophisticated Investor Decision-Making (In the 2008 Financial Crisis), with Some Policy ImplicationsClaire A. Hill
This paper argues that a nuanced view of sophisticated investors, as well as sellers and structurers of financial instruments, articulated within a rationality paradigm, has implications for financial regulation.
The United States Sentencing Commission released a new publication—An Overview of Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (2017 Overview)—that examines the use of federal mandatory minimum penalties and the impact of those penalties on the federal prison population.
The Bishop Paiute Tribe (the “Tribe”) seeks a declaration that they have the right to “investigate violations of tribal, state, and federal law, detain, and transport or deliver a non-Indian violator [encountered on the reservation] to the proper authorities.” Before reaching this issue, the district court dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds, concluding that the case presents no actual case or controversy.
This focuses on the claims for invasion of privacy and the four causes of action generally contained therein. These four claims can be defined as public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, false light, and appropriation of name or likeness.