The University of Miami Business Law Review’s online symposia are designed to advance scholarly discussions on cutting edge issues in legal academia. This online forum offers academics, practitioners, and students an opportunity to engage with one another to discuss the various components of an important issue. These essays can be on anything related to the selected issue, such as the merits of a particular argument, the practical implications of a potential ruling, the propriety of certiorari in a case, or the implications of a proposed regulatory path.
The University of Miami Business Law Review will be hosting its 2022 online symposium, Mainstreet vs. Wall Street: The Democratization of Investing, on March 4th, from 12:30 PM – 3:30 PM. Six expert panelists from FINRA, the SEC, and other institutions will provide insight on the topics of increased access to investing (along with the rise of meme stocks), as well as ESG investing and weighing ethical investing against profit driven investing.
The Review’s first symposium discussed the Supreme Court’s then pending decision in King v. Burwell, which was argued on March 4, 2015. In King, the Court determined whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The case was extremely significant because had the Court determined that the relevant federal tax credits were unconstitutional, millions of Americans would have been at risk of losing their healthcare coverage. Fortunately, the Court ruled in a 6-3 decision, handed down on June 25, 2015, that the relevant federal tax credits were not unconstitutional.
The Review‘s second symposium discussed the Supreme Court’s then pending decision in Fisher v. University of Texas II, which was argued before the Supreme Court on December 9, 2015. In Fisher II, the Court considered whether the University of Texas’ use of racial preferences as a consideration in the undergraduate admissions process constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case generated significant attention because of the implications the decision would have had on the education system’s admissions process and the type of spillover effect the decision would cause in everyday business decisions across the U.S. In a 4-3 decision, handed down on June 23, 2016, the Court held that the race factor in the university’s admissions process was not in violation of the Constitution.
The Review’s third symposium discussed the potential ramifications of the pending U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which was argued on March 27, 2017. In TC Heartland, the Court will determine whether the patent-venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), is the “sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions.” The Court’s decision could potentially put an end to the age-old practice of forum shopping, a version of which allows corporate defendants to be sued for patent infringement anywhere where they were subject to personal jurisdiction, including venues where a single alleged act of infringement occurred. If the Court strikes down the statute as unconstitutional, patent owners would only be able to sue companies for patent infringement in the state where that company is incorporated.
The Review’s fourth online symposium discussed he potential ramifications of the pending U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. American Express Co., which was argued on February 26, 2018. In American Express, the court sought to determine whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government’s showing that American Express’ anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.