Emory Law Journal

Volume 63Issue 1

Students, Security, and Race

Jason P. Nance | 63 Emory L.J. 1 (2013)

In the wake of the terrible shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, our nation has turned its attention to school security. For example, several states have passed or are considering passing legislation that will provide new funding to schools for security equipment and law enforcement officers.

Read More »

Bad Briefs, Bad Law, Bad Markets: Documenting the Poor Quality of Plaintiffs’ Briefs, Its Impact on the Law, and the Market Failure It Reflects

Scott A. Moss | 63 Emory L.J. 59 (2013)

For a major field, employment discrimination suffers surprisingly low-quality plaintiffs’ lawyering.

Read More »

The Anti–Crowd Pleaser: Fixing the Crowdfund Act’s Hidden Risks and Inadequate Remedies

David Mashburn | 63 Emory L.J. 127 (2013)

This Comment analyzes the hidden transaction costs in the Crowdfund Act, particularly the severe liability cost this provision imposes on issuers. Crowdfunded offerings present a new environment in which innocent but inexperienced entrepreneurs face increased risk of making a misstatement or misleading omission. Crowdfunded offerings confront a number of issues not faced by mature companies making public offerings, including the high failure rate of startups, the difficulty of working with emerging technology, the entrepreneurial psychological predisposition to risk, a lack of sophisticated disclosure assistance, and a dearth of due diligence.

Read More »

Regulation X: A New Direction for the Regulation of Mortgage Servicers

Margaret R.T. Dewar | 63 Emory L.J. 175 (2013)

Mortgage servicers are responsible for handling the day-to-day processing of mortgage loans. These responsibilities include processing borrower payments, transferring funds to trustees and investors, and answering borrower inquiries. Mortgage servicers are also responsible for handling delinquent loans when a borrower is late making payments. If a borrower does not cure the delinquency, mortgage servicers are responsible for choosing whether to pursue a foreclosure sale or to implement a loss mitigation option.

Read More »

Prudential Standing, the Zone of Interests, and the New Jurisprudence of Jurisdiction

Micah J. Revell | 63 Emory L.J. 221 (2013)

Threshold limitations on the availability of judicial review are ubiquitous in the modern federal court system. While many are fact-specific and malleable, the most foundational one, jurisdiction, is not. The D.C. Circuit recently held that prudential standing, specifically the zone of interests test, is a jurisdictional limitation on the court’s power to decide a case. This holding directly contradicts several other circuits, which have held that prudential standing is not jurisdictional and may be waived when the parties fail to raise it. Twenty years ago, this decision likely would not have garnered much attention because jurisdictional dismissals were common for a wide swath of reasons. However, the Supreme Court has recently honed its concept of jurisdiction and has cautioned courts to use the label sparingly.

Read More »