Volume 15.2 Table of Contents

ANOTHER POTENTIAL CAPITAL GAIN: CAN AN EXCHANGE OF CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR COOPERATIVE APARTMENTS QUALIFY AS A SECTION 1031 LIKE-KIND EXCHANGE?>
Dr. Valeriya Avdeev

THE STOCK ACT: IS IT NECESSARY AND IF SO IS IT A SUFFICIENT SOLUTION?
Joshua Michael Brick

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: HURDLES OF A MODERN “ROSIE THE RIVETER”
Maggie M. Lewis

PA LAW FAVORS GAS & OIL COMPANIES “IN PAYING QUANTITIES”
Amy Coleman

THE THIRD CIRCUIT ENUNCIATES A NEW TEST FOR DETERMINING JOINT EMPLOYERS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN IN RE ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR WAGE & EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION
Lindsay Kreppel

THE PENNSYLVANIA RACE HORSE DEVELOPMENT AND GAMING ACT AND ITS GOVERNING COMMITTEE, THE PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD: MASON-DIXON RESORTS, L.P. V. THE PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BD.
Katie Pakler

THE “RULE OF REASON” PREFERRED TO “SCOPE OF PATENT” ANALYSIS WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A REVERSE PAYMENT IS LEGAL IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT: IN RE K DUR ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Linda M. Postol

715 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

ANOTHER POTENTIAL CAPITAL GAIN: CAN AN EXCHANGE OF CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR COOPERATIVE APARTMENTS QUALIFY AS A SECTION 1031 LIKE-KIND EXCHANGE?

DR. VALERIYA AVDEEV

Consider the following hypothetical: A sole owner and member of a New York Limited Liability Company (LLC) contemplates an exchange of five condominium units and some monetary consideration for three cooperative apartments. All of the properties are located in the improving neighborhoods of New York City. The LLC has been renting all of the condominium units to tenants on short-term leases, fully furnished. Furthermore, LLC owns all of the condominium units free and clear of debt.  Recently however, the owner of the LLC became concerned about the financial stability of the condominium units, yet does not wish to sell the units in a taxable transaction.  Continue Reading…

329 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

THE STOCK ACT: IS IT NECESSARY AND IF SO IS IT A SUFFICIENT SOLUTION?

JOSHUA MICHAEL BRICK

The original version of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (hereinafter “the STOCK Act”) was introduced by U.S. Representatives Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) (hereinafter “Representative Slaughter”) and Brian Baird (D-Wash.) (hereinafter “Representative Baird”) in the House of Representatives on March 28, 2006.  Upon introducing the STOCK Act, Representative Slaughter explained that existing insider trading laws, did “not apply to nonpublic information about current or upcoming congressional activity.”Continue Reading…

701 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE: HURDLES OF A MODERN “ROSIE THE RIVETER”

MAGGIE M. LEWIS

In the early twentieth century, the primary role of women in society was to take care of the home while their husbands went to work.  As World War II began to intensify in 1941, the definition of the word “home” quickly began to change to include a broad scope for American women:  the United States.  While men were drafted and taken away to war, the government quickly recognized that there was a need to replenish the factories with workers to compensate for the loss of men. Continue Reading…

2,158 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

PA LAW FAVORS GAS & OIL COMPANIES “IN PAYING QUANTITIES”

AMY COLEMAN

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court announced a recent decision to definitely enforce the rights of lessees in an oil and natural gas lease.  While the court had been hedging towards this decision for many years, the decision solidified a subjective standard as to the meaning of “in paying quantities” as a term of art used in a habendum clause in a lease.  This decision reflects a changed attitude towards the relationship between landowners and oil and natural gas companies, favoring the latter’s protection over the former. Continue Reading…

872 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

THE THIRD CIRCUIT ENUNCIATES A NEW TEST FOR DETERMINING JOINT EMPLOYERS UNDER THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT IN IN RE ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR WAGE & EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION

LINDSAY KREPPEL

In In re:Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage & Employment Practices Litigation, the Court of the Appeals for the Third Circuit established a test to determine whether an employer constitutes as a “joint employer” with regards to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (“FLSA”). In doing so, the court analyzed opinions both in and outside of the Third Circuit.  The test provides a clear set of factors to aid courts determining joint employment, but partially ignores the legislative intent in enacting the FLSA.Continue Reading…

747 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

THE PENNSYLVANIA RACE HORSE DEVELOPMENT AND GAMING ACT AND ITS GOVERNING COMMITTEE, THE PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BOARD: MASON-DIXON RESORTS, L.P. V. THE PENNSYLVANIA GAMING CONTROL BD.

KATIE PAKLER

In August 2012 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as “Supreme Court”) decided yet another case upholding
gaming license requirements under the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Gaming Act,” “Act”) and enforcing the power of the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (hereinafter referred to as “Board,” “Gaming Control Board”). Using its previous decisions, in the Mason-Dixon case the Supreme Court recognized the benefits of establishing a gaming industry in Pennsylvania. Continue Reading…

861 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

THE “RULE OF REASON” PREFERRED TO “SCOPE OF PATENT” ANALYSIS WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A REVERSE PAYMENT IS LEGAL IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT: IN RE K DUR ANTITRUST LITIGATION

LINDA M. POSTOL

The Sherman Antitrust Act, passed by Congress in 1890, was a landmark decision aimed at regulating business practices that unfairly restrict trade in the marketplace. More recently, Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly known as the Hatch Waxman Act aimed at facilitating the availability of lower priced generic drugs in the market by allowing a generic manufacturer a quicker route to approval by relying on safety testing done by the brand name manufacturer along with an exclusive time period where no other generic manufacturer can apply for approval.Continue Reading…

799 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-2

Volume 15-1 Table of Contents

THE LEGAL DESTRUCTION OF UNIONS: A GLIMPSE INTO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S NEW “OPT-IN” REQUIREMENT FOR NONMEMBERS: KNOX V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION
Mary O’Rourke

A STRUGGLE FOR CLAIRVOYANCE—SECTION 101 OF THE PATENT ACT AS A GATEKEEPER TO PATENT ELIGIBILITY: MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERV. v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC.
William J. Manolis

THE SUPREME COURT RULES THAT A SECURED LENDER MUST BE PERMITTED TO CREDIT BID IF ITS COLLATERAL IS SOLD PURSUANT TO A CHAPTER 11 PLAN: RADLAX GATEWAY HOTEL, LLC, ET AL. V. AMALGAMATED BANK.
J. Julius Bolock

SUPERIOR COURT HOLDS ACT 91 NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA FINANCE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS DEFECTIVE. BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT CO. V. VUKMAN
Daniel Conlon-Gutierrez

838 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-1

THE LEGAL DESTRUCTION OF UNIONS: A GLIMPSE INTO THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S NEW “OPT-IN” REQUIREMENT FOR NONMEMBERS: KNOX V. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION

MARY O’ROURKE

In Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First Amendment prohibited a public sector union from requiring nonmembers to pay a special fee to finance the union’s political speech. Justice Alito authored the majority decision, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Kagan joined. The Court was faced with determining if a union in an agency shop jurisdiction could enforce a special-assessment or dues increase upon nonunion members to support the union’s political and ideological beliefs without sending out a Hudson Notice.Continue Reading>

1,212 Comments

Filed under Volume 15-1