Law Commons^™

Suffocate Or Innovate: An Observation Of California's Regulatory Framework For Cryptocurrency, Jane Kim

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Transactions involving cryptocurrency are rapidly gaining traction in the United States, prompting the need for regulation. Hence, California legislators proposed the cryptocurrency regulation Assembly Bill 1123. However, based upon the outcome of a virtually identical regulation in New York, this proposed bill is theoretically projected to stifle business growth and potential innovation. This Article focuses on one approach to remedy this by advocating for reform at the federal level and recommending the utilization of the regulatory sandbox as a framework for future regulation.

Borrowing In The Shadow Of Death: Another Look At Probate Lending, David Horton

William & Mary Law Review

“Fringe” lending has long been controversial. Three decades ago, demand for subprime credit soared, and businesses started to offer high-interest rate cash advances, such as tax refund anticipation loans, payday loans, and pension loans. These products have sparked intense debate and are subject to a maze of rules.

However, in Probate Lending, published in the Yale Law Journal, a coauthor and I examined a form of fringe lending that has gone largely unnoticed: firms that pay lump sums in return for an heir or beneficiary’s interest in a pending decedent’s estate. Capitalizing on a California law that requires …

California Bank & Trust V. Lawlor: A More Certain Future For California's Sham Guarantee Defense, Brett D. Young

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Treading Water: Can Municipal Efforts To Condemn Underwater Mortgages Prevail?, Michael S. Moskowitz

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Tenth Annual A. A. Sommer, Jr. Lecture On Corporate, Securities, & Financial Law, Elisse B. Walter

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

No abstract provided.

New Legislation Affecting Non-Notification Financing Of Accounts Receivable, Maximilian Koessler

Michigan Law Review

Not less than sixteen new statutes affecting the assignment of accounts receivable have been enacted in this country since the writer's completion of an essay in which he attempted to draw an all-round picture of the legal situation in this recently so much debated field. It is one of the purposes of the present follow-up study to discuss those new legislative developments. This will be done in part II of this article, where the analysis is subdivided into a contemplation of the new validation statutes on the one hand, and the new recording acts, on the other.

Bills And Notes-Liability Of An Acceptor On An Altered Instrument

Michigan Law Review

Section 62 of the N. I. L. (Uniform Negotiable Instruments Law) provides: "The acceptor by accepting the instrument engages that he will pay it according to the tenor of his acceptance; and admits,-- (1) The existence of the drawer, the genuineness of his signature, and his capacity and authority to draw the instrument, and (2) The existence of the payee and his then capacity to indorse." A recent California case decided that by force of this section, a bank certifying and paying a check on which the payee's name had been changed could not recover the money from the holder …

Bills And Notes - Negotiability - Accelerating Factors Extraneous To Instrument

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff was a good faith purchaser of a trade acceptance payable at a fixed date with a provision for acceleration at the option of the holder [1] " . . . upon the acceptor hereof suspending payment, [2] giving a chattel mortgage, [3] suffering a fire loss, [4] disposing of his business or [5] failing to meet at maturity any prior trade acceptance." In an action by the plaintiff after the fixed date of maturity, defendant-acceptor contended that accelerating provisions 3 and 5 rendered time of payment uncertain and the instrument non-negotiable. Held, the trade acceptance was negotiable. People's …

Bills And Notes-Acceleration Provisions In Negotiable Paper

Michigan Law Review

The defendant, acceptor, claimed that the trade acceptance sued upon was non-negotiable. This trade acceptance was payable at a specified date, but provided for accelerated maturity in case the acceptor should suspend payment, give a chattel mortgage, suffer fire loss, dispose of his business, or fail to meet at maturity any prior trade acceptance. The defendant claimed that in order to preserve negotiability the contingencies specified in the acceleration clause must be such that their happening will be brought about by some act or omission on the part of the acceptor, and that they must relate to some …