Search

Despite over 200 years of deliberation and debate, the United States has not adopted a federal corporate chartering law. Instead, Delaware is the "Federal Option" for corporate law and adjudication. The contemporary federal corporate chartering debate is, in part, a referendum on its role. Although the federal government has regulated other aspects of interstate commerce and has the power to charter corporations and preempt Delaware pursuant to its Commerce Clause power, it has not done so. Despite the rich and robust scholarly discussion of Delaware's jurisdictional dominance, its role as a de facto national regulator remains underdeveloped. This Article addresses a vexing question: Can Delaware, a haven for incorporation and adjudication, serve as an effective national regulator? Following an analysis of federal chartering alternatives, such as the Nader Plan, the Warren Plan, the Sanders Plan, and other modes of regulation, the answer is yes, but with some caveats and qualifications. Delaware's adequate, if imperfect, performance as a surrogate national regulator of corporate internal affairs argues against the upheaval of the existing corporate law framework federal chartering would bring. Even in the contemporary moment where longstanding concerns about corporate power, purpose, accountability, and the uneasy relationship between corporations and society are amplified, Delaware can continue to perform an important agency-like role in collaboration with federal regulators and regulated firms. A deeper examination comparing the merits of federal corporate chartering with Delaware's de facto agency function illuminates the potential of existing and future reforms. This Article concludes that federal chartering proposals have an important impact despite not being adopted for centuries. First, federal chartering proposals encourage policymakers to look beyond the status quo toward greater hybridization in regulatory design. Second, elements of previous federal chartering proposals have historically become successful "à la carte" reforms or part of other successful reform measures. Third, federal chartering proposals provide value as a bargaining tool where the threat of more intrusive federal regulation makes other reform methods more palatable to diverse corporate constituencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keeping higher education affordable and accessible for many Americans is an integral part of furthering the public good. Although legal scholars have given considerable attention to K-12 educational disparities as well as the constitutionality and fairness of admissions practices at selective higher education institutions, they have ignored significant barriers that limit higher education attainment for many low socio-economic status (SES) students. Similarly, the existing regulatory architecture, including federal, state, and institutional policies, inadequately addresses the higher education needs of low-SES students. This article responds to this significant gap in legal scholarship. Advancing higher education attainment for low-SES students presents a rare opportunity for the Obama administration to leave an enduring reform legacy much in the same way Roosevelt achieved with the GI Bill and Lincoln with the Morrill Act. The heightened focus on higher education attainment for low-SES students is also quite timely given the nation's slow economic growth and the Supreme Court's recent decision in Fisher v. Texas. These factors, among others, have prompted higher education observers to consider the use of class as an alternative to the use of race in college admissions and beyond. In this legal, economic, and political environment, reforms targeting higher education attainment for low-SES students take on added significance. In response to these challenges, this Article proposes a more comprehensive K-16 framework to guide future reforms targeting higher education attainment for low-SES students. These reforms include: a rigorous K-12 education for a greater number of students, a transitional bridge between secondary school and higher education, college-level reforms from federal, state, and institutional actors, and a presidential commission exclusively targeting higher education equity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the development of a regulatory legal framework for prohibiting the for-profit higher education abuses. It informs that the U.S. federal government is providing higher education funding programs to promote access to higher education for vulnerable students in association with the For-Profit Colleges & Universities (FPCU). It suggests reforms in the educational field by the government for availability of higher education to low socio-economic status student.

The article discusses the role of corporate reform as a credence service in the U.S. It mentions the similarity of corporate governance reform to a reform service wherein its constituents work like consumers and corporate lawmakers. It points out that the services show credence features which are service attributes whose quality cannot be specified even after use.

The modern process of amicus curiae participation is a form of political symbolism reflecting the Supreme Court's irreconcilable role in American democracy as a quasi-representative policy-making institution. Specifically, this political symbolism reassures the public, particularly vulnerable groups, of the Court's democratic character. Amicus participation dispels external public criticism that the Court is detached and indifferent to the public, without significantly undermining the Court's independence. Ultimately, the Court's institutional legitimacy rests upon the dual pillars of independence and inclusion. Amicus participation contributes significantly to the latter. Critics of the Court's current open door policy to amicus participation fear that the lack of additional constraints governing the submission of amicus briefs encourages partisan excess, promotes judicial activism, and unduly burdens the Court. However, the benefits to the Court and its multiple stakeholders outweigh these concerns. This Article builds upon the existing legal literature by (i) exploring amicus participation's value to multiple stakeholders, not simply the Court and (ii) highlighting the important link between amicus participation, political symbolism, and the Court's institutional legitimacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]