Defense Of Faith Research Articles

Navigating the Safe Harbors: Two Bright Line Rules to Assist Courts in Applying the Stockbroker Defense and the Good Faith Defense

In the spring of 1996, Michael Berger formed an offshore investment company known as Manhattan Investment Fund Ltd. (“the Fund”). Berger employed a risky strategy of short-selling – an investment tactic that essentially bet on particular stocks dropping in value over a certain period of time. His strategy proved to be a disastrous miscalculation that eventually brought the Fund to financial ruin, leading to losses of nearly $300 million over the next four years and a chain of cover-ups and misdeeds that would leave Berger pleasing guilty to several criminal counts of securities fraud in the summer of 2000. Two of the chief questions left for courts in the wake of a collapse like Manhattan Investment Fund is how to equitably handle the rights of all the players involved, and perhaps more importantly, how to best divvy the remaining assets in according with those rights. As more and more hedge funds and other alternative investment companies are forced to declare insolvency, courts are increasingly being asked to answer this problematic question. The chief focus for the affected parties becomes not just how courts will interpret their rights but further, whether they can reliably depend on those rights to protect them during the bankruptcy process. This Note will focus on the rights and obligations of only one of the many parties implicated when a hedge fund dissolves – the prime broker. It explains the effects of safe harbors during the bankruptcy process for prime brokers and how these special protections operate ultimately to further Congress’s goals of providing stability, consistence, and clarity in the marketplace. Ultimately, this Note recommends two bright line rules courts should use when determining whether to grant parties a safe harbor under the stockbroker defense and the good faith defense, arguing that the application of these wills will provide courts with a pragmatic approach that will deliver consistent and reliable results.

When Choice Does Not Matter: Political Liberalism, Religion and the Faith School Debate

Liberal attempts to defend faith schooling have been conditional on the ability of faith schools to serve as a context for individual choice. A recent critique of these attempts claims that religious parents would find such moderate faith schooling unacceptable. This article sets forth a new liberal defence of faith schools drawing heavily on the distinction between political and comprehensive liberalism. Since political liberalism's understanding of personal autonomy does not include the ability to make choices, the political liberal defence of faith schools can accommodate denominational schools that limit the ability of students to choose or change their religion.

The Untouchables: Protections from Liability for Border Searches Conducted by U.S. Customs in Light of the Passage of the Good Faith Defense m 19 U.S.C. § 482(b)

The Untouchables: Protections from Liability for Border Searches Conducted by U.S. Customs in Light of the Passage of the Good Faith Defense m 19 U.S.C. § 482(b)

Philip Roth's Jewish Family Marx and the Defense of Faith

Philip Roth's Jewish Family Marx and the Defense of Faith

Congress is (Not) Repealing the Exclusionary Rule! Symbolic Politics and Criminal Justice (Non)Reform

In 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court approved a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in cases where a warrant was wrongfully issued, but the Court has declined to extend it to warrantless cases. Because the majority of searches fall under exceptions to the warrant clause and thus are conducted without warrants, providing a good faith defense to constitutional challenges in these caseswould in effectrepeal the exclusionary rule. Such legislation has been proposed in Congress, but it is unlikely to pass. Even if it did pass, however, it would not change police accountability to the Fourth Amendmentmuch, because the exclusionary rule probably only minimally deters police misconduct, a matter that is difficult to explore empirically. Furthermore, the proposed legislation would apply only to federal and not state law enforcement-with exceptions for the federal police agencies that the bill's sponsors do not like. Despite the fact that the effect of this law would be minimal if it were passed, such legislation will continue to be proposed because the exclusionary rule is a condensation symbol for law and order ideologues who oppose it as a means of symbolically marking their political territory.

The Institutional Bad Faith Defense to the Enforcement of IRS Summonses

The Institutional Bad Faith Defense to the Enforcement of IRS Summonses

TINJAUAN TEOLOGIS TERHADAP PENDEKATAN EVIDENSIALIST DALAM PERSPEKTIF REFORMED THEOLOGY

In the context of apolegetics known as the presupposition approach and evidentialist approach. However, many debates have led to disputes because of the overwhelming evidence that supports each other. Is it true that the defense of faith and the basis of faith always rest on evidence. Through this paper, we will explore a little about Reformed presuppositions as a theological review of the evidentialist approach.

Doubt in Defense of Faith

Journal Article Doubt in Defense of Faith Get access CHARLES W. SWAIN CHARLES W. SWAIN CHARLES W. SWAIN (B.A., State University of Iowa; Ph.D., Brown University) is Assistant Professor of Religion at The Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. The present article is based upon a paper read before the meeting of the Sourheastern Section of the American Academy of Religion at Duke University in March, 1967. The author spent the academic year 1967–68 studying East Asian Buddhism at the Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard University. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XXXVI, Issue 2, June 1968, Pages 109–117, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/XXXVI.2.109 Published: 01 June 1968

HISTORICAL STUDIES

HISTORICAL STUDIES Get access Zashchita Vyeri V SSSR (The Defense of Faith in the Soviet Union). By ANATOLIY EMMANUILOVICH LEVITIN. Paris: Ichthys, 1966. 101 pages. N.p. C. B. ASHANIN C. B. ASHANIN Christian Theological Seminary Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Volume XXXV, Issue 4, December 1967, Pages 404–406, https://doi.org/10.1093/jaarel/XXXV.4.404 Published: 01 December 1967

Corporations: Good Faith Defense of Corporate Policy Held Sufficient to Justify Repurchase of Stock with Corporate Funds

Corporations: Good Faith Defense of Corporate Policy Held Sufficient to Justify Repurchase of Stock with Corporate Funds

Good Faith, Discrimination, and Market Organization

* authors thank. James Ferguson and Almarin Phillips for their assistance, but absolve them from responsibility for the views expressed. definitive studies by Corwin D. Edwards, Price Discrimination Law (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1959) and Frederick M. Rowe, Price Discrimination Under the RobinsonPatman Act (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Company, 1962) have been invaluable. reader is referred to these studies for the legislative history of the good faith defense, its early judicial interpretation, and the general public policy issues which the defense poses. This paper is narrower in scope and will consider only the issues raised by recent Commission and court decisions. '15 U.S.C. ? 13. 2 See Mark S. Massel, Competition and Monopoly: Legal and Economic Issues (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1962). 3 Separate Memorandum in Federal Trade Commission v. Sun Oil Co., 1963 TRADE CASES, 1 70, 621, p. 77, 542. 4 Joel B. Dirlam and Alfred E. Kahn, Fair Competition: Law and Economics of Antitrust Policy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1954), p. 119. 5Jesse Markham, The Report of the Attorney General's Committee on Antitrust Laws, 70 Quarterly Journal of Economics 211 (1956). the Robinson-Patman Act is an enduring fact of economic life. As Austern has explained:

The Good Faith Defense of the Robinson-Patman Act: A Realistic Approach to the Problem of Meeting Competition

The Good Faith Defense of the Robinson-Patman Act: A Realistic Approach to the Problem of Meeting Competition

The Good Faith Defense of the Robinson-Patman Act: A New Restriction Appraised

The Good Faith Defense of the Robinson-Patman Act: A New Restriction Appraised