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.

Basic at Twenty : Rethinking Fraud-on-the-Market

Abstract: Twenty years after being decided, Basic Inc. v. Levinson is being interpreted and applied in interesting, sometimes jarring, ways. This paper looks at Basic's presumption of reliance in fraud-on-the-market cases and the ways in which contemporary courts are addressing such issues as (1) the level of efficiency that is necessary for the presumption to apply; (2) the role of market price distortion and loss causation in the class certification decision; and (3) the connections between materiality and reliance (Basic's two separate issues) in both class certification and on the merits. Basic set in motion much of the resulting confusion by making more of reliance - and market efficiency - than was needed, and then paying too little attention to the joint risks of indeterminacy and disproportionality in the liability threat created by fraud-on-the-market lawsuits. Had it taken a different route, or better explained the route it was taking, we might have seen early on that class recovery is better suited as a deterrence mechanism than a compensatory device. That makes a stringent approach to reliance, causation or class certification unnecessary, but also calls into question the idea that each investor has a "right" to recovery by trading at a distorted price. Instead, the law headed in precisely the opposite direction.

Restricting the Marketing of Junk Food to Children by Product Placement and Character Selling

Abstract: This Article argues that certain marketing practices — specifically product placements and the use of popular characters to promote products — are deceptive when used to market to children. It argues that such practices should therefore be prohibited by federal law and further, that such a law is consistent with the First Amendment.

Peace and Justice: Notes on the Evolution and Purposes of Legal Processes

Abstract: This text of the inaugural lecture for the A.B. Chettle, Jr. Chair in Dispute Resolution and Civil Procedure at Georgetown University Law Center presents an intellectual outline (theory and practice) for a house of justice built on the foundations of Lon Fuller, the Legal Process school, Jurgen Habermas' and Stuart Hampshire's social philosophy about democratic processes, the floors of comparative processes, drawing on the work of political theorist Jon Elster and empirical work on legal and political processes and the ceilings of new processes, like consensus building fora, truth and reconciliation commissions and other combinations of legal and political processes. A model of different modes of human conflict resolution is outlined with differentiations of different forms of process (open/closed; plenary/committees; expert/naturalistic; constitutive/permanent/ad hoc). The article suggests a broadened view of what should be taught as legal process - beyond conventional civil procedure to many more forms of human legal and political processes. If process is the human bridge between justice and peace then we much teach about both kinds of processes - those seeking justice and those seeking peace; hopefully they can both be accomplished.

Revamping the US federal common rule modernizing human participant research regulations

Abstract: On January 19, 2017, the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), Department of Health and Human Services, and 15 federal agencies published a final rule to modernize the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (known as the “Common Rule”).1 Initially introduced more than a quarter century ago, the Common Rule predated modern scientific methods and findings, notably human genome research.

How Do the Elderly Fare in Medical Malpractice Litigation, Before and After Tort Reform? Evidence from Texas

Abstract: The elderly account for a disproportionate share of medical spending, but little is known about how they are treated by the medical malpractice system, or how tort reform affects elderly claimants. We compare paid medical malpractice claims brought by elderly plaintiffs in Texas during 1988-2009 to those brought by adult non-elderly plaintiffs. Controlling for healthcare utilization, elderly paid claims rose from 20% to 66% of the adult non-elderly rate, and mean and median payments per claim converged, although the elderly were far less likely to receive large payments. Tort reform strongly affected claim rates and payouts for both groups, but disproportionately reduced payouts to elderly claimants. We thus find evidence of convergence between the elderly and the adult non-elderly in both claim rates and payouts, which is interrupted by tort reform.