Media Archives - 2011
Professor Adam Steinman in The National Law Journal regarding personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer. Learn more >>
December 23, 2011
Professor Adam Steinman appeared in the National Law Journal, offering commentary and analysis on a recent Massachusetts case which, unlike two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, found personal jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer which, through its website, was said to have “purposely availed itself” of the Massachusetts marketplace. The case, LaFond v. Salomon North America Inc., involves what are alleged to be faulty ski bindings which were said to have caused serious and permanent injuries to the plaintiff. The Massachusetts court noted in its opinion that question of whether a Web site gives Massachusetts courts personal jurisdiction over a defendant is one of first impression in the state's courts.
The two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions which found differently, Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations S.A. v. Brown and J. McIntyre Machinery Ltd. v. Nicastro, however, were distinguishable from the Massachusetts case, LaFond. The National Law Journal notes:
Professor Jonathan Hafetz in Salon.com on the New AUMF Bill, “PolitiFact and the Scam of Neutral Expertise”
December 05, 2011
Professor Jonathan Hafetz appeared in a Salon.com feature written by Glenn Greenwald entitled “PolitiFact and the scam of neutral expertise.” At issue in the article is the new Authorization to Use Military Force bill (AUMF) and its characterization as one which could allow the military detention of American Citizens. A point noted recently by the ACLU, a number of prominent civil libertarian lawyers (including Professor Hafetz last week in Mother Jones Magazine), and Ron Paul. PolitiFact, labeled Ron Paul’s public assessment as “mostly false,” but as Greenwald reports, PolitiFact relied solely upon two conservatives for this assessment.
Greenwald further writes:
Professor Shavar Jeffries In the New York Times and Wall Street Journal
November 01, 2011
Professor Shavar Jeffries, Member of the Newark Public Schools Board, appeared in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal regarding the administration of the $100 million matching grant given to the City of Newark by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg last year on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”
In a recent newsletter, Professor Jeffries noted to his constituency that he “continued to fight” for “the same things I've been pushing for the past 12 years as a civil-rights lawyer, Assistant Attorney General, and child advocate.” In addition to emphasizing a “rigorous, college-preparatory curricula with high expectations” and “recruiting, hiring, and retaining world-class education professionals” to do so, Professor Jeffries has long been a proponent of community and parental empowerment as a means of effectuating school transformation. In recent articles in the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, Professor Jeffries expressed his satisfaction with the manner and direction in which the Zuckerberg monies have been administered.
In reference to the Zuckerberg monies, which are administered through the Foundation for Newark’s Future, and Gregory Taylor, president and chief executive of the organization, Professor Jeffries recently related to reporters that “the Foundation already has made ‘smart investments’” with the grant monies.
In talking about the Foundation’s prospects, a recent $10,000 grant initiative to directly incentivize individual teachers and groups of teachers who come up with innovative classroom programs, as well as prior initiatives which were responsible for “opening new schools, extending school days and recruiting teachers,” The Wall Street Journal reported:
In addition, Professor Jeffries told the New York Times that he came away from a recent meeting with Mr. Taylor feeling assured that Mr. Taylor’s goals and priorities for future Foundation investments in Newark schools were “the right ones.”
The New York Times writes:
Professor Jonathan Hafetz with Glenn Greenwald on FireDogLake’s Book Salon
October 29, 2011
Professor Jonathan Hafetz appeared on FireDogLake’s book salon, hosting an online discussion with Glenn Greenwald regarding Greenwald’s new book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.
Center for Policy & Research Fellow, Co-Director of the Transnational Justice Project and author of the critically acclaimed Habeas Corpus After 9/11, Professor Hafetz introduces Glenn Greenwald, attorney and regular featured contributor at Salon.com with the following:
Practitioner-in-Residence Kyle L. Rosenkrans in the New York Times on the Impact of the HUD Decision to Not Renew its Contract with Newark’s Carmel Towers.
October 26, 2011
Practitioner-in-Residence Kyle L. Rosenkrans appeared in the New York Times regarding the impact of the decision by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to not renew its contract with a high-rise apartment building in Newark, Carmel Towers. The building, which is twenty-five stories tall and was opened to tenants in 1971, received rent subsidy money from HUD, often totaling upwards of $1000 while residents were liable for payments of up to 30% of their salary.
The building, however, failed two recent government inspections, scoring only 18 points out of a possible 100 in one inspection. According to the New York Times, a spokesperson for HUD stated that “The problems at Carmel Towers have included serious health and safety issues that have not been adequately addressed over time.”
In deciding to not renew its contract at Carmel Towers, HUD has offered vouchers to tenants for new housing, but tenants must find that housing themselves. In addition, some tenants have complained that the cost of moving itself is prohibitive and that because at Carmel Towers HUD paid for utilities, any new residence without that subsidy would be untenable.
Practitioner-in-Residence Rosenkrans, whose work with the clinic has focused largely on the rights of homeowners facing foreclosure and other housing issues along with systemic education reform, has met repeatedly with groups of tenants to advise them of both their rights and options as they attempt to navigate the change in housing situations.
In noting the uncertainty in which the change has left tenants of Carmel Towers, the Times writes:
Professor Stephen Lubben in The Wall Street Journal, Which Pointed Readers to his Debate with Andrew Ross Sorkin in the New York Times’ DealBook on the possibility of a divorce settlement “redo” given a Bernard Madoff Investment.
June 13, 2011
The Wall Street Journal’s Daily Docket alerted readers to a debate Professor Lubben was having with Andrew Ross Sorkin, Editor of the DealBook, regarding the legal propriety of a possible divorce settlement “redo” given that the original settlement included the disposition of an investment with Bernie Madoff. Professor Lubben writes a regular column for the Times’ DealBook, but this debate took place within the comments section of a Sorkin article.
Seton Hall law professor Stephen Lubben and Andrew Ross Sorkin debate the merits of a divorce settlement redo involving a Paul Weiss lawyer who invested with Bernard Madoff in the comments section (h/t Credit Slips) of this DealBook post.
Professor Brian Sheppard
June 08, 2011
Professor Brian Sheppard along with law professors from Harvard University and Florida State University appeared in a feature Op-ed in The Los Angeles Times. Professor Sheppard assembled an international team of legal experts and Seton Hall Law students to assess the constitutional validity of the 2009 ouster of then President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya and to offer recommendations for avoiding such crises in the future.
The professors write in their L.A. Times Op-ed:
Compared with the tumultuous changes in government we have witnessed in Tunisia and Egypt in January and February, the sudden early-morning removal of the sitting president in Honduras in 2009 was met with minimal fanfare or apprehension beyond Honduran borders. Yet the implications have been far-reaching for the Honduran government and its leadership, as well as the Honduran people.
With five months left in his term and a new presidential election underway, President Manuel Zelaya was said to have begun exploring polling the Honduran citizenry with regard to an extended term in office. A Constitutional provision, however, limits presidential terms to four years. The Constitution also contains a provision which strips the president of all powers should he attempt to extend his stay in office. What triggers the stripping of power, or who decides if it is triggered, is, however, not satisfactorily answered by the legal texts.
At any rate, the Supreme Court ordered Zelaya’s arrest. The military subsequently apprehended Zelaya, but instead of jailing him, they expatriated him to Costa Rica. The subsequent presidential election was conducted as scheduled, and President Porfirio Lobo Sosa now enters his second year in office. The U.N., however, does not yet recognize the current Honduran government.
In early 2010, Honduras, eager to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the world, formed a Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the recommendation of the United Nations and the Organization of American States.
At the time of the ouster, Professor Brian Sheppard was attending Harvard as a Climenko Fellow and working towards his Doctor of Juridical Science degree. In Spring 2010, he was alerted to the formation of the Commission and their need for a team to assess the validity of the sudden leadership change and the pertinent provisions of the Honduran constitution. “My scholarship focuses on the theoretical and conceptual analysis of changes in legal systems,” Professor Sheppard explained. “The situation in Honduras was intriguing and compelling to me because there are serious implications when law and realpolitik converge and clash. In this instance, constitutional interpretation has had major repercussions for the people of Honduras.”
Professor Sheppard gathered a team of Harvard constitutional law experts: Professor Noah Feldman, who served as senior constitutional advisor to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and subsequently advised members of the Iraqi Governing Council on the drafting of the interim constitution; and Professor David Landau, who specializes in comparative constitutional jurisprudence with a particular expertise in Latin America. Their proposal was selected in early January of 2011 and within a matter of days, members of the Truth Commission requested that the team fly to Honduras to begin the discovery process.
Braving a snowstorm, Professor Sheppard flew to Honduras so that he could conduct interviews on schedule. “I spent the last days of winter break interviewing members of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, local constitutional law experts, representatives of key military officers and representatives of the resistance who advocated for Zelaya. As we had expected, the key players in the event used sophisticated legal reasoning in defense of their conduct.”
Professor Sheppard contacted the faculty advisor of Seton Hall Law’s chapter of the Latin American Law Students Association to recruit students who were fluent in Spanish to assist him in conducting the extensive document review. Santos Flores ’13, Cristal Reyes ’11, Paulisa Vargas ’13, and Rookmin Beepat ‘13 stepped forward and are now integral members of the team.
Flores noted, "It was an honor to contribute to this report to the Honduras Truth and Reconciliation Commission— and I’m proud to have played a role in the Commission's mission to analyze and bring closure to this important chapter in Honduran history. Recognition by the nations of the world has huge socio-economic repercussions for the people of Honduras, and this report can ultimately help to strengthen Honduran democracy.
Cristal Reyes agreed, “I felt privileged to help piece together the story behind the changes the Honduran government underwent in 2009. And I was thrilled to contribute to an analysis that will lead to a determination on the legitimacy of the Honduran government and its place within the UN. I also have great hope that this report facilitates not only transparency regarding the events surrounding the ouster of former President Zelaya, but future governmental transitions for Honduras as well.”
The final report was presented to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in March, and the Commission will be issuing its complete analysis in June. “The most gratifying part of our work is that the report is both retrospective and prospective. We need to understand what happened in the context of constitutional application. But we also are charged with making recommendations that would improve the constitution so that these sorts of lapses and misunderstandings cannot happen again.”
Professor Stephen Lubben in Bloomberg News on the $318.4 Million Madoff Estate Lawyers and Advisers have Received Through March
May 19, 2011
Professor Stephen Lubben offered comment for an article in Bloomberg News discussing the $318.4 million Madoff Estate lawyers and advisers have received through March. Irving Picard was appointed trustee of the estate by the Securities Investor Protection Corp., a securities industry funded organization designed to protect brokerage customers, days after the Madoff irregularities came to light. According to Bloomberg,
Bloomberg further notes that
In considering the amount of fees over the initial period, Bloomberg relates,
The main case is Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 08-ap-1789, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Professor Stephen Lubben In the Wall Street Journal, NY Times and Standard & Poor’s LCD Weekly
May 04, 2011
Professor Stephen Lubben appeared in the Wall Street Journal regarding the looming battle between the various creditor interests over the remains of Lehman Bros, and in his column in the New York Times and in Standard & Poor’s on the problems of multiple Chapter 11 plans.
In the Wall Street Journal, Professor Lubben commented on the fight proceeding from the estate of Lehman Bros. At issue is the configuration of the bankruptcy plan with creditors to different parts of the Lehman Bros. estate vying for different dispositions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the varied creditors are espousing dispositions most favorable to their respective positions.
The Wall Street Journal further explains:
Professor Lubben was also quoted in the article as saying "Everyone may just be staking out their bargaining positions with these plans. We may see some sort of plan that comes out that represents a negotiated solution between all three."
In Standard & Poor’s LCD Distressed Investor Weekly, Professor Lubben’s column in the New York Times on the problems of multiple Chapter 11 plans was quoted extensively in an article entitled, “Bankruptcy trends: Implications of Tribune’s multiple proposed plans.”
Standard & Poor’s writes:
Professor Stephen Lubben in The Wall Street Journal in “Bankruptcy Experts Gather to Set Research Agenda”
February 10, 2011
Professor Stephen Lubben appeared in The Wall Street Journal in regard to the conference, “Setting the Big-Bankruptcy Empirical Research Agenda,” held in Los Angeles and featuring more than a dozen of the country’s leading bankruptcy experts. Professor Lubben was one of four such experts described in the WSJ article. The conference was organized by Professor Lynn M. LoPucki, the leading bankruptcy expert, other than Professor Lubben, in analyzing costs for large Chapter 11 bankruptcies.
Professor LoPucki uses a multi-year database whereas Professor Lubben primarily uses a single year database. WSJ notes
Seton Hall law professor Stephen J. Lubben has specialized in studying the cost of large Chapter 11 cases, albeit using different models. Lubben wants to put his to the test on the data that LoPucki has gathered for close to 20 years.
If you click on “wants to put his to the test” in the WSJ text above, it will bring you to the Memorandum Professor Lubben issued to Professor LoPucki and other conference participants. In the memo, Professor Lubben describes the recent state of discordant affairs in large Chapter 11 case cost analysis:
And then offers a challenging solution to Professor LoPucki:
Professor Mark Denbeaux in Stars and Stripes on Mefloquine Dosing at GTMO
January 23, 2011
Professor Mark Denbeaux appeared in an article in Stars And Stripes regarding the most recent report by the Center for Policy & Research, “Drug Abuse: An Exploration of the Government's Use of Mefloquine at Guantánamo.” Stars And Stripes was founded during the Civil War by Union soldiers and is “an independent news source that operates from inside the United States Department of Defense but is editorially separate from it.”
The Center report documents the medically inappropriate use of a dangerous pharmacological treatment on Guantánamo Bay detainees. Stars And Stripes writes
“The best I could say is that this is reckless disregard for the health of the detainees,” said Mark Denbeaux, an author of the university’s report and director of Seton Hall’s Center for Policy and Research. “They’re clearly not doing it for the health of the detainees, but for the health ofothers there.”
Professor Mark Alexander in the Washington Times on the New House Rule Requiring a Constitutional Citation for Bills
January 18, 2011
Professor Mark Alexander offered commentary in an article in the Washington Times regarding the impact of the new rule in the House of Representatives requiring new bills to cite to the constitutional power under which the proposed legislation derives legitimate authority.
The article featured differing views on separation of powers as regards the duty of constitutional interpretation, and The Washington Times noted:
Mark C. Alexander, a law professor at Seton Hall University, said the back-and-forth is a debate worth having, adding that lawmakers should ponder whether what they are doing is supported by the Constitution. But he said ultimately, Congress will have to defer to the courts' rulings.
"It's important to do that, to keep that debate going, but ultimately I think we have to recognize the court makes the decision as to whether something is or is not constitutional," he said. "If your point is, this is not constitutional, as a member of Congress it's actually not ultimately your decision. The courts have to decide it. That's their job."