Home Home Home Home Home
HomeContentSubmissionsMembershipGeneral
Currently in Print:
Vol. 99, June 2013, Issue 4
Constitutional Privileging
by Michael Coenen
A Constitutional Theory of Habeas Power
by Lee B. Kovarsky
The Science of Exclusion: Race and Social Capital in Housing Policy
by Stephanie M. Stern
The Principal Problem: Towards a More Limited Role for Fiduciary Law in the Nonprofit Sector
by Natalie Brown
In Brief:
Recently Published Items
Noel Canning v. NLRB - Enforcing Basic Constitutional Limits On Presidential Power
Essay by Noel J. Francisco and James M. Burnham

Unequal Treatment of Religious Exercises Under RFRA: Explaining the Outliers in the HHS Mandate Cases
Essay by Mark Rienzi

Protecting Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty
Essay by Douglas Laycock and Thomas C. Berg

[More]
Announcements
Virginia Law Review Announces Centennial Campaign

May Notes Pool Announcement

Notes Accepted from the March 2013 Notes Pool

[More]

Email Updates
Join Our Mailing List
Quick Links
Submit to In Brief

Forthcoming

Archive

Subscriptions

Advertisements

Customer Service

Short-Article Policy

Masthead

Contact Information
Virginia Law Review Association
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903-1789

Phone: 434-924-3079
Fax: 434-982-2818
E-Mail: lawrev@virginia.edu

Contact Valerie Listorti

The Mandatory Core of Section 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act  Essay
April 2, 2010

IN April 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Rent-a-Center v. Jackson, a case that has profound implications for the future of American dispute resolution. The issue before the Court is not the merits of Antonio Jackson’s civil rights lawsuit against his former employer, nor even the validity of the mandatory arbitration contract that he was required to sign before he could begin work. Instead, the Court must decide whether Jackson—and the hundreds of millions of other employees, consumers, and franchisees who are subject to mandatory arbitration clauses—have a non-waivable right to challenge the fairness of such provisions in federal court. Because the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) allows courts to nullify one-sided arbitration clauses under the unconscionability doctrine, the judiciary has traditionally served as a bulwark against harsh dispute resolution terms. Yet the contract at issue in Rent-a-Center expressly gives the arbitrator, not courts, the sole authority to decide whether “any part of this Agreement is void.”

[More]

Placebo Statutes?: Sarbanes-Oxley and Ethics Code Disclosures | Response
By Donald C. Langevoort

IN Placebo Ethics, Usha Rodrigues and Mike Stegemoller (“R&S”) show that Section 406 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and its implementing rules have failed to generate disclosures that shed enough light on conflicts of interest and related ethical issues involving senior financial executives at publicly traded companies. They suggest two different stories of failure. One is on the part of those making disclosure decisions at public companies, presumably lawyers, who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of the Section 406 rules. The other is on the part of policymakers, particularly at the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), whose dim articulation of the rules and subsequent failure to enforce enabled such widespread evasion. R&S seem quite troubled by both.

My comments are about these supposed failures and, more generally, the diffusion of securities law compliance norms among publicly traded issuers. I fully agree with R&S that Section 406 has failed to produce much of value. I am less convinced that many thoughtful observers ever expected it to, or that the investing public has somehow been lulled into thinking otherwise.

[More]