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.

The Evolution and Vitality of Merger Presumptions: A Decision-Theoretic Approach

Abstract: This article reviews the formulation and evolution of the Philadelphia National Bank anticompetitive presumption through the lens of decision theory and Bayes Law. It explains how the economic theory, empirical evidence and experience are used to determine a presumption and how that presumption interacts with the reliability of relevant evidence to rationally set the appropriate burden of production and burden of persuasion to rebut the presumption. The article applies this reasoning to merger presumptions. It also sketches out a number of non-market share structural factors that might be used to supplement or replace the current legal and enforcement presumptions for mergers. It also discusses the potential for conflicting presumptions and how such conflicts might best be resolved.

Does Mandatory Disclosure Matter? The Case of Nonprofit Fundraising:

Abstract: Do donors seek out potentially adverse information about organizations making fundraising appeals? Do they react when it is readily available? Do they draw negative inferences when critical informa...

Doing ‘being interrupted’ in political talk

Abstract: This article examines the questioning of US Attorney General Jeff Sessions by Senators Angus King and Kamala Harris during a congressional hearing. Analyses of the two exchanges, grounded in conversation analytic (CA) methodology, reveal that simultaneous and near-simultaneous talk initiated by the senators is pervasive in both exchanges. However, Sessions does ‘being interrupted’ (Hutchby 1996; Bilmes 1997)—that is, displays an orientation toward his interlocutors’ turns as a violation of his speaking rights—three times more often when he is questioned by Harris rather than King. The discrepancy in Sessions’ handling of the senators’ turns may explain why Harris is sanctioned by two colleagues during her questioning and why commentators have characterized her as aggressive and interruptive, while at the same time lauding (or ignoring) King. These findings ultimately suggest that doing being interrupted may influence how others perceive an interaction and those participating in it. (Institutional discourse, interruption, latching, overlap, political discourse)

A Tale of Two Markets: Regulation and Innovation in Post-Crisis Mortgage and Structured Finance Markets

Abstract: This Article takes stock of post-financial crisis regulatory developments to tell a tale of two markets within a political economy of financial regulation. The financial crisis stemmed from excessive risk-taking and dodgy practices in the subprime home mortgage market, a market that owed its existence to private-label securitization. The pre-crisis boom in private label mortgage-backed securities could never have happened, however, without financing from an array of structured products and vehicles created in the capital markets—CDOs, CDO2s, and SIVs. It was these capital markets products that magnified mortgage credit risk and transmitted it into the financial system’s vulnerable nodes. The post-crisis regulation has proceeded on different lines for mortgage markets and for capital markets. Post-crisis regulation of residential mortgage origination and securitization markets includes a set of strict prohibitions on particular products and practices. In contrast, post-crisis regulation of capital markets takes a much lighter touch, increasing regulatory costs for certain transactions but not prohibiting them outright. Capital market regulation has been particularly focused on the capital requirements of a particular type of user of structured products—banks. Outside of bank regulation, capital markets remain free to innovate with structured products. This distinction is precisely what the political economy of regulation would predict. Interventions in consumer markets are likely to be more politically salient to voters because they address products that voters use directly, while structured products are purchased only by sophisticated financial institutional investors. Despite the lighter regulatory approach taken to capital markets, today’s structured products are qualitatively different than pre-crisis products. Subprime mortgage-backed securities, CDOs, CDO2s, CDO-based synthetics, and SIVs have entirely disappeared from the market even without regulatory prohibitions. Even so, post-crisis regulation may have had an unintended effect. The increased regulation of banks has resulted in a shift of high-risk behavior in both the mortgage and structured products markets to the more thinly regulated nonbank sector, where financial innovation and regulatory arbitrage still proceed apace. The hydraulic effect of entity-based regulation may here be sowing the seeds of the next crisis.

The Presidential Election of 2008

Abstract: Senators Barack Obama and John McCain each has severe problems. McCain must take his distance from the very unpopular President Bush while keeping the support of the core Republican voters, but suffers from lack of rapport with the Fundamentalist Protestants and traditionalist Catholics. In foreign policy, he is more devoted to US global hegemony (in a world which stubbornly refuses it) than the incumbent. Senator Obama knows that this is a dangerous illusion but thinks that it is unwise to say so. He supports Israel in exaggerated terms and repeats the fabrications of the war party about Iran. Obama has the difficulty of being part black and entirely intellectual, and he needs the votes of the working class men and women who are very reserved about him. McCain seeks low taxes and less government expenditure and intervention, but tens of millions of economically hard-pressed citizens are ready to return to the ethos and practices of the New Deal. Obama promises to revive the regulatory and redistributive role of government to help them, but his reluctance to criticise the arms budget may makes him seem unrealistic. Obama's vision of the United States puts the achievement of the American Revolution in the future whereas McCain thinks of the nation as already perfected. In many respects, we have a classical conflict between left and right.