Category Archives: Volume 15-1

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

Comments Off on Volume 15-1 Table of Contents

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>

Comments Off on 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

Filed under Volume 15-1

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

In Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the United States Supreme Court affirmed the implicit prohibition against patentability contained in § 101 of the Patent Act of 1952 (“the Patent Act”), specifically, that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. In arriving at its decision, the Court noted that § 101 of the Patent Act must be applied as the threshold test for determining subject-matter patentability. Continue Reading>

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

Filed under Volume 15-1

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

In May 2012, the United States Supreme Court cleared up confusion in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and Bankruptcy Courts as to whether debtors were allowed to sell encumbered assets free and clear of liens without allowing secured lenders to credit-bid to pay for a potential sale of those assets. In RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC, , v. Amalgamated Bank, the Court concluded that RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC and RadLAX Gateway Deck, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “RadLAX”) could not gain confirmation of their reorganization plan that provided for the sale of their encumbered assets free and clear of liens without allowing Amalgamated Bank (hereinafter referred as “Bank”) to credit bid.  Continue Reading…

Comments Off on 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.

Filed under Volume 15-1

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

DANIEL CONLON-GUTIERREZ

In Vukman, the Pennsylvania Superior Court (“Superior Court”) decided that the Act 91 notice, which a lender sent a homeowner in 2006, was defective because it did not inform her of the right to meet with a lender before a foreclosure action, as required by the version of the Homeowners’ Emergency Mortgage Assistance Act (“Act 91”) then in effect.  The lender incorrectly relied on the Act 91 model or uniform notice published by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority (“PHFA”) in 1999, which omitted a homeowner’s option to meet with the lender. Continue Reading>

Comments Off on SUPERIOR COURT HOLDS ACT 91 NOTICE PUBLISHED BY THE PENNSYLVANIA FINANCE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS DEFECTIVE. BENEFICIAL CONSUMER DISCOUNT CO. V. VUKMAN

Filed under Volume 15-1

THE EQUAL PAY ACT: ALMOST FIFTY YEARS LATER, WHY WAGE GAP STILL EXISTS

BRIDGET SASSON

This Comment will review the history of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and recent legislation dealing with wage disparity and examine possible causes for the continuing wage gap.  In 1963 John F. Kennedy signed the EPA, amending the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) of 1938, making it illegal to pay women lower wages than men solely because of their sex. Continue Reading>

Comments Off on THE EQUAL PAY ACT: ALMOST FIFTY YEARS LATER, WHY WAGE GAP STILL EXISTS

Filed under Volume 15-1