Comment

Print
Comment
87.4
The Golden Share: Attaching Fiduciary Duties to Bankruptcy Veto Rights
Yiming Sun
BA 2018, University of California, Los Angeles; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

I wish to thank Professors Douglas Baird and Anthony Casey, as well as The University of Chicago Law Review editors, for their guidance and advice throughout the writing process.

Suppose you are a large investment fund that just loaned money to a company. Like many large lenders, you secured the loan with the company’s equipment as collateral. But unfortunately, the company missed an interest payment and defaulted under the terms of its notes. What’s worse, it subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

Print
Comment
86.8
Exculpatory Evidence Pre-plea without Extending Brady
Brian Sanders
BA 2017, Pepperdine University; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School

I thank Professor Douglas Baird for his critiques, especially in regard to big boy clauses. I thank Brendan Anderson, Tiberius Davis, and Zachary Reynolds for listening to me talk incessantly about exculpatory evidence and for providing indispensable feedback. I thank Charles F. Capps for all his insights and especially for his critique of my formal logic.

Print
Comment
86.8
Legal Fictions and Foreign Frictions: An Argument for a Functional Interpretation of Jesner v Arab Bank for Transnational Corporations
Kelly Geddes
AB 2017, University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School

I would like to thank Professor Tom Ginsburg, Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell, Michael Ortiz-Benz, and the editors and staff of The University of Chicago Law Review for their assistance and insightful feedback throughout the process of writing this Comment.

Print
Comment
86.7
High-Value, Low-Value, and No-Value Guns: Applying Free Speech Law to the Second Amendment
Joseph E. Sitzmann
BA 2017, The George Washington University; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School.

The Supreme Court ushered in a dramatic shift in Second Amendment jurisprudence in District of Columbia v Heller, holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for “the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” This decision made clear that possession of a firearm need not be tethered to service in a militia. But the Court left open significant questions regarding what exactly that newly defined right entails.