American Business Law Journal最新文献

Banks have particular characteristics that set them apart from other business entities, including being more highly leveraged, benefiting from government safety nets, and generating massive negative externalities when they fail. These attributes mean that in addition to shareholder interests, bank directors should be allowed to carefully consider the interests of nonshareholders, such as creditors, taxpayers, and the overall economy, when making decisions. While directors of banks in states that have enacted constituency statutes may be allowed to consider nonshareholder interests, no federal act expressly allows directors of federally chartered banks to consider such interests. Moreover, to date, thirty-seven states have enacted legislation to allow for the formation of public benefit corporations that require directors to consider the interests of nonshareholders. No federal law provides a clear path for federally chartered banks to do this. This article proposes dual federal legislation that would (1) enable directors of all federally chartered banks to expressly consider nonshareholder constituents when making decisions and (2) allow for the formation of national benefit banks that would require directors to consider nonshareholder interests in their decision-making.

In Evans et al1, Figure 4 was omitted from the published article. The Figure 4 image can be found below.

For the reader's convenience, Figure 4 image is first referenced at page 641 of the article. We apologize for this error.

As the number of U.S. states that seek to loosen restrictions on marijuana rapidly increases, a heated debate over state and federal regulation has ignited. But an important component of that debate has been largely absent—are these state efforts placing the United States in violation of its international treaty obligations? This article attempts to answer this question by tracing the history of marijuana regulation both in the United States and abroad and outlining the foundations for domestic legislation. It argues that the experiments happening among a number of states and countries to liberalize marijuana laws are bearing fruit and should be tied to a broader reform agenda of the same international narcotics treaties that the United States sought decades ago.

This introduction reviews six articles presented at the 2020 symposium, “Legal, Ethical, and Compliance Issues in Emerging Markets: Cannabis in the States.” Scholars from across the United States and Canada presented research using the lens of law and strategy, ethics, and compliance to focus on the U.S. cannabis industry. The articles are discussed within the framework of institutional voids common to emerging markets, which may include a lack of a fully developed regulatory system and issues related to financial markets. These institutional problems create complexity for consumers, producers, municipalities, and state governments in this industry, and make success for this market segment more challenging. The introduction contributes to the discussion by reviewing securities litigation involving the cannabis industry generally and specifically in light of some of the issues identified by authors in the special issue.

The regulation of cannabis in the United States is inconsistent and contradictory, to put it mildly. While marijuana remains classified as a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act—in the same category as heroin and morphine, with accompanying criminal penalties up to and including life imprisonment for its production, distribution, and possession—as of the end of 2020, eleven states and the District of Columbia had legalized recreational marijuana use and thirty-six states and the District of Columbia had decriminalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Despite the trend toward legalization, however, marijuana is a stigmatized product. Stigmatized products are those toward which a significant portion of consumers hold negative attitudes and beliefs, whereas the concept of legitimacy is defined as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. This article addresses how current legislation and regulations influence consumer perceptions of a product category, and how conflicting regulations (or the lack of regulations) influence the adoption of a stigmatized product such as cannabis (i.e., marijuana and cannabidiol products)

Disparities between federal and state cannabis regulation, coupled with protracted federal enforcement, have facilitated the proliferation of a multi–billion dollar cannabis industry that generally evades compliance with federal consumer protection laws. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) established regulatory pathways for the lawful development of products such as food, drugs, and dietary supplements. The FDCA uses a science-based approach to protect consumers from harmful products, but early inconsistencies between state and federal cannabis regulation prevented and/or discouraged the cannabis industry from complying with FDCA requirements. Cannabis products are promoted as safe and attributed with providing effective therapeutic treatment for numerous medical conditions, yet the claims often lack the rigorous evidence-based support typically expected by regulators and the medical community. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced its expectation that cannabidiol (CBD) products comply with the FDCA and follow a science-based approach to product development. The FDA is addressing violations involving unsubstantiated CBD health claims and is working to clarify the future regulatory pathway for CBD products. Meanwhile, the state-approved cannabis market continues to operate, selling numerous products that have circumvented the FDCA consumer protections. This article examines the need for strengthening consumer protections in the cannabis market. We use evidence-based medicine as a model to address the importance of science-based product development and to contextualize a science-based comparison of regulatory pathways for cannabis drugs, food, and dietary supplements.

American Indian tribes that enter the cannabis industry confront a multisovereign tax system that lacks certainty and horizontal equity. The complex interaction of state legalization and taxation of cannabis, federal tax law, the status of tribes as both governments and business enterprises, and the legal and tax landscape in Indian country can give tribes tax advantages and disadvantages compared to off-reservation cannabis dispensaries. This article analyzes these tax issues, examines them in the context of prior challenges posed by Indian gaming, and suggests reforms that address the tax inequities that can result from cannabis sales on Indian reservations.

Though the medical use of marijuana is legal in thirty-three states, it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Any marijuana use can subject individuals to severe criminal and civil penalties under federal law. States that condition patient access and treatment on registration in a state database impose real risks on their citizens. Although many scholars have written about the tension between federal and state treatment of marijuana, this is the first article to examine marijuana patient registry privacy and fundamental rights issues. This article first reviews the relationship between marijuana use and patient treatment, with a focus on health-care and privacy rights under state and federal law. The article then explains how marijuana registries compare to broader patient registries, such as contagious disease and other medical condition patient registries, and the unique issues presented by marijuana patient registries. It then discusses the elevated risk to constitutional, privacy, and fundamental rights that may result if states do not carefully construct marijuana registries. The article concludes by proposing principles for how both states and dispensaries should approach marijuana registries in order to provide health benefits and avoid harm to patients.

One of the most influential cases in corporate governance is In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation (Caremark). In 1996, Caremark imposed a novel duty on boards of directors to make a good faith attempt to implement and exercise oversight over obligations leading to liability. Breach of this minimal duty has been difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove, and the case law is littered with dismissed Caremark lawsuits. As Caremark's reign reaches a quarter-century, however, its duties are primed to evolve. Two cases, Marchand v. Barnhill and In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, took the rare step of allowing Caremark claims to survive motions to dismiss. These cases signal a new understanding of Caremark obligating boards not merely to attempt oversight, but to ensure proactively that such oversight is effective. This subtle but significant change in board duties is one to which the academic literature should respond. This article first reviews the Marchand and Clovis cases and argues that these cases hold significance for the future of Caremark claims. Second, this article studies client advisories from law firms and other sources that evaluate the Clovis and Marchand cases. It finds that while these advisories offer useful tactical responses, they lack strategic advice that would benefit boards over the long term. Filling the gap, this article presents long-term strategic advice for boards not only to meet Caremark duties but also to thrive as exemplars of good governance and ethical leadership for the next twenty-five years.

U.S. professional sports teams are increasingly relying on sophisticated forms of data analysis to identify potential areas of competitive advantage over their league rivals. Indeed, emerging evidence suggests that the most sophisticated teams in this area are using the insights that they derive from data analytics to establish durable and significant gains over their competition on the playing field. At the same time, sports franchises frequently utilize noncompete agreements to protect the resulting, proprietary information that their data analysis yields. Unfortunately, recent academic research suggests that this reliance on covenants not to compete can decrease the rate of knowledge diffusion within an industry, making it more difficult for teams to catch up to early adopters of data analytics. Thus, teams’ growing reliance on data analytics—and their use of noncompete agreements to protect their resulting findings—could have significant, but heretofore unrecognized, ramifications for league efforts to maintain an adequate level of competitive balance amongst their franchises. This article explores this state of affairs, as well as the implications it presents for the governance of U.S. professional sports leagues.