Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Affordable Care Act (2)
- Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (1)
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (1)
- Class actions (1)
-
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend (1)
- Command-and-control (1)
- Commerce Clause (1)
- Congress (1)
- Corporate democracy (1)
- Corporate personhood (1)
- Corporation (1)
- Cultural identity (1)
- Culture (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc. (1)
- Halliburton II (1)
- Health insurance (1)
- Managers (1)
- Mandates (1)
- Misstatements (1)
- National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (1)
- Penalties (1)
- Primary-purpose text (1)
- Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (1)
- Regulations (1)
- Relative coerciveness (1)
- Rule 10b-5 (1)
- Rule 23 (1)
- Securities (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Who Speaks The Culture Of The Corporation?, Gwendolyn Gordon
Who Speaks The Culture Of The Corporation?, Gwendolyn Gordon
Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review
Recent cases – Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores and Citizens United chief among them – evince a new understanding of the nature of the corporation and its place in society. Whether a corporation has rights – such as those of religious exercise – is not, however, just a question of legal interpretation. To answer this question requires a theory of group or cultural identity, that is, a theory of how a group may have “culture” separate and apart from those of the individuals that comprise it. And such a theory must address how to understand the meaning of culture when …
Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue
Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue
Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review
When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) explaining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision (sometimes referred to as the individual mandate), he reasoned that the mandate—or, more precisely, the enforcement provision that accompanied the mandate (the Shared Responsibility Payment or SRP)—could be understood as a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance. According to this view, the enactment of the mandate and its accompanying enforcement provisions fell within Congress’s virtually unlimited power to “lay and collect taxes.” This tax-based interpretation …
Rebutting The Fraud On The Market Presumption In Securities Fraud Class Actions: Halliburton Ii Opens The Door, Victor E. Schwartz, Christopher E. Appel
Rebutting The Fraud On The Market Presumption In Securities Fraud Class Actions: Halliburton Ii Opens The Door, Victor E. Schwartz, Christopher E. Appel
Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review
In Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II), the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the “fraud on the market” presumption underlying securities fraud class action litigation. This presumption is vital to bringing suits as class actions because it excuses plaintiffs from proving individual reliance on an alleged corporate misstatement on the theory that any public statements made by the company are incorporated into its stock price and consequently relied upon by all investors. Thus, the Court’s decision to uphold the validity of the presumption has been hailed as a significant victory for those …