Fordham Law ReviewPub Date : 2021-03-31DOI: 10.21202/1993-047X.15.2021.1.106-134
C. Matthews
{"title":"Using a Hybrid Securities Test to Tackle the Problem of Pyramid Fraud","authors":"C. Matthews","doi":"10.21202/1993-047X.15.2021.1.106-134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047X.15.2021.1.106-134","url":null,"abstract":"This Note examines federal securities law as a tool to deter and regulate illegal pyramid schemes. Pyramid schemes are among the most prevalent forms of consumer fraud in the United States and they victimize thousands of individuals every year. The rise of the internet and social media has made it even easier for pyramid promoters to target potential recruits, often those who are already particularly vulnerable to consumer fraud. The federal securities laws have proven to be robust regulatory tools against pyramid schemes. However, the test used by federal courts to determine whether a scheme meets the definition of a security has produced uncertainty and inconsistency in the law. This Note proposes that when pyramid schemes are alleged, federal courts should apply a hybrid securities test that incorporates aspects of risk capital analysis. In so doing, courts will be better equipped to focus on the economic reality of pyramid schemes and to draw a more principled line between illegal pyramid fraud and legitimate enterprises.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47725299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Resurrecting Free Speech","authors":"K. M. Sullivan","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv177tk5p.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv177tk5p.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68783505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fordham Law ReviewPub Date : 2020-03-23DOI: 10.21202/1993-047x.14.2020.1.142-164
D. Manzi
{"title":"Managing the Misinformation Marketplace: The First Amendment and the Fight Against Fake News","authors":"D. Manzi","doi":"10.21202/1993-047x.14.2020.1.142-164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047x.14.2020.1.142-164","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44961587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fordham Law ReviewPub Date : 2019-04-28DOI: 10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.4.1684-1709
Tessa Hofmann
{"title":"Airbnb in New York City: whose privacy rights are threatened by a Government Data grab?","authors":"Tessa Hofmann","doi":"10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.4.1684-1709","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.4.1684-1709","url":null,"abstract":"New York City regulators have vigorously resisted the rise of Airbnb as an alternative to traditional hotels, characterizing “home sharing” as a trend that is sucking up permanent housing in a city already facing an affordability crisis. However, laws banning short-term rentals have done little to discourage this practice, as Airbnb’s policy of keeping user information private makes it possible for illegal operators to evade law enforcement. Frustrated by this power imbalance, the New York City Council passed Local Law 146, which requires Airbnb to provide city officials with access to the names and information of its home sharing hosts on a monthly basis to assist with law enforcement efforts. Airbnb claims that the ordinance is a flagrant violation of its own privacy rights and the rights of its customers. Local Law 146 is the culmination of the regulatory struggle over Airbnb in New York City, but it is also a flash point for government data-collection efforts generally. Because of the massive potential of using private companies’ data to aid in law enforcement efforts, the implementation of data-collection statutes could be an attractive policing tool. Using Local Law 146 as a lens, this Note examines the privacy issues implicated by datacollection laws and discusses which parties can assert these privacy rights, particularly given recent changes in third-party doctrine jurisprudence. Ultimately, this Note concludes that, while the outcome of Airbnb’s challenge to Local Law 146 will be an important indicator, the suit will not resolve the question of whether individual Airbnb hosts could successfully challenge this law without the support of the company. Individual challenges to sweeping data-collection statutes could be the next frontier in breaking down the thirdparty doctrine’s barrier to Fourth Amendment protections.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44593707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fordham Law ReviewPub Date : 2019-01-01DOI: 10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.4.1661-1683
Danhui Xu
{"title":"Free money, but not tax-free: a proposal for the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks","authors":"Danhui Xu","doi":"10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.4.1661-1683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21202/1993-047x.13.2019.4.1661-1683","url":null,"abstract":"Cryptocurrency has attracted extraordinary attention as one of the greatest financial innovations in recent years. Equally noticeable are the increasingly frequent cryptocurrency events, such as hard forks. Put simply, a cryptocurrency hard fork happens when a single cryptocurrency splits in two, which results in original coin owners receiving free forked coins. Such hard forks have resulted in billions of dollars distributed to U.S. taxpayers. Despite ongoing regulatory efforts, to date, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has yet to take a clear position on the tax treatment of cryptocurrency hard forks. The lack of useful guidance when filing tax returns has left taxpayers genuinely confused in the past few years. To fill this regulatory gap, this Note proposes a framework for cryptocurrency hard fork taxation. It explains the underlying technology of cryptocurrency hard forks, examines the recommended guidelines from the American Bar Association and the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants on cryptocurrency hard fork taxation, and references the current practices in Japan and the United Kingdom to lay a solid foundation for the proposed framework. Ultimately, this Note proposes a two-pronged tax on cryptocurrency hard forks. The first tax is levied on the profit made from the receipt of forked coins, and the second tax is levied on the profit made from the disposition of forked coins. A concrete proposal is provided for the applicable coin valuation, tax basis, holding period, and tax rate for the two prongs. Aiming to propose a tax treatment that is closest to the nature of cryptocurrency hard forks, this proposal considers various practical concerns, such as the inefficiency of the cryptocurrency market, the indirect possession of forked coins through third-party exchanges, and the fluctuating trading prices of forked coins when determining the valuation, tax basis, and holding period. This proposal not only provides clarity for taxpayers in filing","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67945800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Role of Direct-Injury Government-Entity Lawsuits in the Opioid Litigation.","authors":"Edgar Aliferov","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The opioid epidemic has ravaged the United States, killing over 100 Americans every day and costing the nation upward of $90 billion a year. All branches and levels of the government have pursued measures to combat the epidemic and reduce its societal costs. Perhaps the most interesting response is the emergence of direct-injury government-entity lawsuits, which seek to recover damages from opioid companies that facilitated prescription pill addictions. Cities, counties, and states across the country are suing opioid manufacturers and distributors in unprecedented numbers. This Note explores the role of direct-injury government-entity claims as compared to other forms of civil litigation employed in the opioid crisis. It highlights the obstacles faced by parens patriae actions, individual lawsuits, class actions, and aggregate actions in general. This Note argues that direct injury government claims have important advantages over other forms of civil litigation because they overcome certain defenses related to victim blame worthiness and because they function as inherently representative actions that bypass the certification requirements of traditional aggregate actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37029407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rape Messaging.","authors":"Alena Allen","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When feminists began advocating for rape reform in the 1970s, the rape message was clear: rape was not a crime to be taken seriously because women lie. After decades of criminal law reform, the legal requirement that a woman vigorously resist a man's sexual advances to prove that she was raped has largely disappeared from the statute books, and, in theory, rape shield laws make a woman's prior sexual history irrelevant. Yet, despite what the law dictates, rape law reforms have not had a \"trickle-down\" effect, where changes in law lead to changes in attitude. Women are still believed to be vindictive shrews so police continue to code rape allegations as \"unfounded,\" and prosecutors continue to elect not to prosecute many rape cases. To many, \"no\" can sometimes still mean \"yes.\" In short, criminal law reforms have only marginally succeeded at deterring rape and increasing conviction rates for rape. At the same time, criminal law reforms have entrenched gender norms and endorsed the message that acquaintance rapes are less worthy of harsh punishment. This Article argues against further ex post criminal law reforms and posits that efforts should shift to ex ante public health interventions. This Article draws from recent successful experiences with public health interventions in destigmatizing AIDS and denormalizing tobacco and advocates for a robust public health campaign to denormalize rape. It presents a detailed proposal for changing rape messaging, denormalizing rape, and ensuring better outcomes for victims.</p>","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37029406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Children are Crying and Dying while the Supreme Court is hiding: Why Public Schools Should Have Broad Authority to Regulate Off-Campus Bullying \"Speech.\"","authors":"Jennifer Butwin","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bullying has long been a concern for students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. But technological advances--including the internet, cell phones, and social media--have transformed the nature of bullying and allow \"cyberbullies\" to extend their reach far beyond the schoolhouse gate. The U.S. Supreme Court established that schools may regulate on-campus speech if the speech creates a substantial disruption of, or material interference with, school activities. However, the Court has yet to rule on a school’s ability to regulate students' off-campus bullying speech. This Note examines how various courts have approached the issue, analyzes the current circuit split, and ultimately proposes that schools should have the authority to discipline students for off-campus bullying speech.</p>","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36650925","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"\"Wrongful Birth\" Claims and the Paradox of Parenting a Child with a Disability.","authors":"Sofia Yakren","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>\"Wrongful birth\" is a controversial medical malpractice claim raised by the mother of a child born with a disability against a medical professional whose failure to provide adequate prenatal information denied her the chance to abort. Plaintiff-mothers are required to testify that, but for the defendant's negligence, they would have terminated their pregnancy. Accordingly, alongside pro-life activists, disability rights advocates have opposed \"wrongful birth\" claims for stigmatizing and discriminating against people with disabilities by framing their very existence as a harm. Despite plaintiff-mothers' need for caretaking resources, scholars have recommended solutions ranging from the wholesale elimination of the wrongful birth claim to the curtailment of damages. To the extent scholars and the media have acknowledged mothers in the wrongful birth discourse at all, often it has been to blame and shame them for allegedly rejecting their children. They have paid little attention to the ways wrongful birth jurisprudence forces mothers to disavow their children in court, and thereby to forfeit the \"good mother\" ideal, in exchange for the possibility of securing necessary resources for their children. Commentators who question plaintiff-mothers' maternal devotion exacerbate the psychological toll the law already imposes. This Article shifts the blame from mothers to the legal system. While wrongful birth proceedings portray mothers' feelings about their children as categorically negative, real life accounts and social science findings reveal the true paradoxical experiences of all mothers, including plaintiff-mothers raising children with disabilities. To acknowledge this complex reality and mitigate the emotional strain of bringing a wrongful birth claim, this Article proposes several legal reforms: (1) broadening the analysis of emotional distress to reflect and legitimize mothers' paradoxical feelings about their children; (2) reframing the harm to mothers as loss of reproductive choice rather than as the birth of a flawed child and, accordingly, expanding available economic damages to include plaintiff-mothers' unexpected childcare responsibilities; and (3) educating plaintiffs' attorneys to empathize with the emotional aspects of mothers' litigation experiences and to counsel mothers accordingly. Today's approach to \"wrongful birth\" claims, which both stigmatizes disability and strains caretakers, demands urgent reform.</p>","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36650926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Asbestos Trust Transparency.","authors":"Mark A Behrens","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2018-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36565815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}