scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.


Papers
More filters
Posted Content
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose reconciling the competing title systems through an integrated system of note registration and mortgage recordation, with compliance as a prerequisite to foreclosures, which would resolve questions about standing, remove the potential cloud to real-estate title, and facilitate mortgage financing by clarifying property rights.
Abstract: The mortgage foreclosure crisis raises legal questions as important as its economic impact Questions that were straightforward and uncontroversial a generation ago today threaten the stability of a $13 trillion mortgage market: Who has standing to foreclose? If a foreclosure was done improperly, what is the effect? And what is the proper legal method for transferring mortgages? These questions implicate the clarity of title for property nationwide and pose a too- big-to-fail problem for the courtsThe legal confusion stems from the existence of competing systems for establishing title to mortgages and transferring those rights Historically, mortgage title was established and transferred through the “public demonstration” regimes of UCC Article 3 and land recordation systems This arrangement worked satisfactorily when mortgages were rarely transferred Mortgage finance, however, shifted to securitization, which involves repeated bulk transfers of mortgagesTo facilitate securitization, deal architects developed alternative “contracting” regimes for mortgage title: UCC Article 9 and MERS, a private mortgage registry These new regimes reduced the cost of securitization by dispensing with demonstrative formalities, but at the expense of reduced clarity of title, which raised the costs of mortgage enforcement This trade-off benefitted the securitization industry at the expense of securitization investors because it became apparent only subsequently with the rise in mortgage foreclosures The harm, however, has not been limited to securitization investors Clouded mortgage title has significant negative externalities on the economy asa wholeThis Article proposes reconciling the competing title systems through an integrated system of note registration and mortgage recordation, with compliance as a prerequisite to foreclosure Such a system would resolve questions about standing, remove the potential cloud to real-estate title, and facilitate mortgage financing by clarifying property rights

15 citations

Posted Content
TL;DR: The JOBS Act of 2012 reflects the largest deregulatory change to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 over its more than 75 year history as discussed by the authors, which contracts the coverage of those companies subject to the obligations of 'publicness' and introduces an 'on ramp' that will permit most newly-public companies to meet a lesser set of disclosure, internal control and governance obligations for up to five years.
Abstract: The JOBS Act of 2012 reflects the largest deregulatory change to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 over its more than 75 year history. It contracts the coverage of those companies subject to the obligations of ‘publicness' and it introduces an 'on ramp' that will permit most newly-public companies to meet a lesser set of disclosure, internal control and governance obligations for up to five years. We set these changes against a larger discussion of when a private enterprise should be forced to take on public status in securities regulation, a topic that has been entirely under theorized. We conclude that the change from 500 to 2000 shareholders of record made by the JOBS Act, while entirely clear in its deregulatory thrust, misses a key point: 'record' ownership is an antiquated metric for any measuring of publicness and Congress needs to find a better one, such as public trading. More broadly, we observe that Congress increasingly has defined public obligations in securities regulation less by the traditional touchstone of investor protection and more by ways that our largest companies affect constituencies beyond their investor base. Our boundary-setting thus should include two tiers of public companies with the smaller tier limited to core disclosure and governance obligations. Finally, our review of these boundary questions reveals a larger pattern that ought to inform how we understand securities regulation. Entrepreneurs and their advisors regularly occupy new unregulated space created in the wake of technological change or by gaps in regulation revealed as markets evolve. Government response, seemingly inevitably, is piecemeal and reactive. The result is a regulatory process that is more informal than administrative law theory usually suggests and more opaque than we might want in contemplating regulatory change.

15 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the core idea that law can be an essential tool for creating the conditions that enable people to lead healthierand safer lives is discussed. But, as stated by the authors, "the legal foundation for governmental public health is not defined yet."

15 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
15 Oct 2014-JAMA
TL;DR: The Court’s decision ignored the critical role of local health agencies in responding to 21st century public health threats, including epidemics of obesity and chronic disease, and obscured the fundamental truth that public health policymaking requires complex trade-offs and incremental action.
Abstract: Childhood and adult obesity pose major risks for cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, with the poor and racial minorities suffering from disproportionately high burdens of obesity and chronic disease. With current policies failing, cities and states have moved forward with creative prevention measures –- with boards of health driving policy innovation in many local jurisdictions. The New York City Board of Board of Health’s (NYCBH) soda portion limit pushed the boundaries of innovation, but was struck down on June 26, 2014 by New York State’s highest court, which held that the Board trespassed on the City Council’s authority.The Court’s decision ignored the critical role of local health agencies in responding to 21st century public health threats, including epidemics of obesity and chronic disease. The Court narrowly construed the NYCBH’s authority, characterizing its powers as administrative, and thus potentially stifling local innovation. The decision also obscured the fundamental truth that public health policymaking requires complex trade-offs and incremental action, as well as a multifaceted approach to reducing population weight gain. Policymaking often relies upon limited evidence, and agencies experiment with novel ideas while also transforming social norms and pushing the boundaries of public opinion. Although the portion rule would disproportionately affect disadvantaged individuals who drink the largest amount of soda, government’s failure to act represents a greater injustice. Enhancing opportunities to choose a healthy life path better serves the interests of justice, but the Court’s judgment takes us further away from realizing this social aspiration.

15 citations


Authors

Showing all 585 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Lawrence O. Gostin7587923066
Michael J. Saks381555398
Chirag Shah343415056
Sara J. Rosenbaum344256907
Mark Dybul33614171
Steven C. Salop3312011330
Joost Pauwelyn321543429
Mark Tushnet312674754
Gorik Ooms291243013
Alicia Ely Yamin291222703
Julie E. Cohen28632666
James G. Hodge272252874
John H. Jackson271022919
Margaret M. Blair26754711
William W. Bratton251122037
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
American University
13K papers, 367.2K citations

78% related

Brookings Institution
2.7K papers, 135.3K citations

78% related

London School of Economics and Political Science
35K papers, 1.4M citations

78% related

Bocconi University
8.9K papers, 344.1K citations

75% related

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
1.9K papers, 118K citations

75% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
202174
2020146
2019115
2018113
2017109
2016118