Thursday February 12, 2009
Suffolk University Law School
120 Tremont Street, Boston, MA
Managing the Bailout: Execution and Oversight of the Federal Response to the Financial Crisis (CLE) Room 285, 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm
Sponsored by the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service, Suffolk University Law School and the ABA Section of Business Law
This panel will examine the challenges of policy execution and oversight posed by Troubled Asset Relief Program approved by Congress in October 2008. The conditions under which TARP was implemented were daunting: a massive budget; short time frame, and high uncertainty about the character of the problem to be addressed. What were the major design and implementation challenges, and how well have they been addressed? Have oversight mechanisms established since October 2008 proved effective?
Panelists:
- Professor Cornelius Hurley, Director, Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law, Boston University School of Law
- William F. Kroener III, Counsel, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; Co-Chair, ABA Task Force on Financial Markets Regulatory Reform
- Thomas McCool, Director, Applied Research and Methods, Government Accountability Office
- Damon Silvers, Associate General Counsel, AFL-CIO; Member, EESA Congressional Oversight Panel
Moderator:
- Alasdair Roberts, Jerome L. Rappaport Professor of Law and Public Policy, Suffolk University Law School
Reception, Faculty Boardroom, 5:30 pm – 7:00 pm
Sponsored by the Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service, Suffolk University Law School
Dinner
Location: TBD, 7:00 pm
If you would like to attend this “dutch treat” dinner, please register here.
Friday February 13, 2009
Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel
138 St. James Avenue, Boston
Recent Developments in Education Law, State Suite B, Lower Lobby Level, 9:00am – 10:30am
The emerging area of professors suing students; schools giving student identifying information to music companies; parents right to "opt out" of curriculum they find offensive; student speech and the "Columbine factor".
On this panel you will hear from Karen Orr, the attorney who obtained immunity for two Purdue University students when they were sued by their professor after they complained about him.
The panel will also discuss cases like the Tenebaum and Arista Records case involving issues of student privacy, criminal prosecution and so called piracy actions. Presenters include Judie Tenenbaum, an attorney and the mother of Joel Tenenbaum, the B.U. graduate student who the Recording Industry of American (RIAA) is suing for file sharing music. The RIAA subpoenaed the contents of Ms. Tenenbaum's home computer.
We also discuss parents' decision not to have their second grade and kindergarten age children read books about gay marriage and the right of the school to control its curriculum in the Parker v. Hurley case. Hear from attorneys like John J. Davis who represented the town and the school. Hear from attorneys representing the parents.
We will also discuss the emerging limitation on student speech caused by the "Columbine factor".
Panelists:
- John J. Davis, Pierce, Davis & Perritano, Boston, MA
- Robert Sinsheimer, Denner Pellegrino, Boston, MA
- Karen Orr, Stuart and Branigin, LLP, Lafayette, IN
- Judie Tenenbaum, attorney, mother of Joel Tenenbau
- Caroline Newcombe, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, CA (program organizer)
Moderator:
- Victoria Dodd, Professor, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA
Recent Developments in Communications Law, State Suite B, Lower Lobby Level, 10:45am – 12:15pm
Fox v. FCC and fleeting expletives before the Supreme Court; Network Neutrality and claims that Comcast interfered with peer to peer applications. The FCC order involving Free Press and Comcast.
On November 4, 2008, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fox v. FCC. This is the famous Cher and Nicole Richie "fleeting expletives" case. According to one paper, this case could have "the most profound effect on federal regulation of broadcasting in 30 years." It also would be the first time the US Supreme Court has looked at indecency issues in 30 years. Finally, it involves fundamental administrative law issues of what constitutes arbitrary and capricious actions. Hear from Maureen O'Connell, Senior Vice President, Regulatory and Government Affairs, News Corporation. Hear from Matthew Berry, General Counsel, FCC, on the Comcast issue as well as the Fox case. Hear from attorney Seamus Duffy who represents Comcast.
Panelists:
- Maureen O'Connell, Esq., Senior Vice President, Regulatory and Government Affairs, News Corporation
- Matthew Berry, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Washington, DC
- Seamus Duffy, Drinker & Biddle, attorney Comcast, Philadelphia, PA
- Chris Riley, Policy Counsel, attorney Free Press, Washington, DC
Moderator:
- Russell Frisby, Fleischman & Harding, Washington, DC
Program Organizer: Caroline Newcombe, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles, CA
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiatives: Lasting Model or Historical Artifact?, State Suite A, Lower Lobby Level, 10:45am – 12:15pm
Although the possibility is imminent in light of the change in administration, neither Congress nor the Environmental Protection Agency has enacted legislation or promulgated rules to regulate greenhouse gas emissions or institute a cap-and-trade program. During the last few years, in the absence of a federal regulatory scheme, groups of states have formulated regional greenhouse gas initiatives to establish regional cap-and-trade programs. Of these, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”), formulated by the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, is the most advanced. Two other regional programs, the Midwestern Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Western Climate Initiative, are on a slower track.
Formulated by states that did not want to sit idly on the sidelines as the federal government failed to take action, the regional initiatives came into being to fill the regulatory gap. Many commentators believe that these programs might be around for a long time, in light of the current economic situation and congressional reluctance to impose carbon dioxide emission surcharges on energy prices. Others demur. Whichever body of opinion turns out to be correct, questions abound as to whether the regional initiatives are effective mechanisms for greenhouse gas regulation, whether they will survive legal scrutiny, and whether they ultimately will be pre-empted by federal legislation or agency rules. The Panelists will address these issues from several different perspectives.
Co-sponsored by the ABA Standing Committee on Environmental Law and the ABA Section of Environment, Energy and Resources
Panelists:
- William Funk, a professor at the Lewis and Clark Law School who teaches environmental, administrative and constitutional law, will address RGGI from a constitutional perspective, with a focus on the compact clause and dormant commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States. Portland, OR
- Professor Richard Pierce, George Washington Law School, Washington, DC
- Honorable Laurie Burt, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA
- Paul Sotkiewicz, Senior Economist, PJM Interconnection, LLC., Norristown, PA
- Colin Owyang, Senior Vice-President & U.S. General Counsel, National Grid
Implementing Health Reform: The Massachusetts Example, State Suite A, Lower Lobby Level, 1:45pm – 3:30pm
When Massachusetts enacted An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care in April 2006, it undertook a comprehensive and visible effort to reform health insurance and health care practices. By requiring every Massachusetts resident to obtain health insurance coverage or its equivalent by July 1, 2007, Massachusetts hoped to eliminate lack of insurance as a cause of inadequate health care. The statute also established reporting and goal-setting mechanisms aimed at improving the quality of health care services, including reducing racial and ethnic disparities. A study conducted after the first year in which insurance was required for all who have access to affordable coverage, shows that uninsurance was reduced and access to care improved. As a result, the Massachusetts experience seems to many to offer a model to inform the efforts of other states and the nation in addressing access to, and the quality of, health care. This panel will explore the Massachusetts experience in implementing the universal coverage mandate and the areas in which the Massachusetts experience may or may not provide a useful model for the nation. Panelists will include representatives of the major agencies involved in the program and private business and insurance interests also affected by the statute.
Panelists:
- Rosemarie Day, Deputy Director, Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority
- Dolores Mitchell, Executive Director, Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission
- Joseph Nevins, Law Department, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts
- Donna McCormick, Managing Attorney, Greater Boston Legal Services, Boston, MA
Moderator:
- Renée M. Landers, Professor, Suffolk University Law School, Boston, MA
Family Medical Leave Act Update, CANCELLED
There are no events in the schedule.