So as Starbucks goes goes the economy?

Is Starbuck's success an indicator for the economy? Bloomberg had an interesting article today suggesting just that (See Starbuck's Results Prove Recession's Over). From the piece by Dan Mitchell:

Traffic in Starbucks (SBUX) stores increased by 3 percent. And the average bill grew by 4 percent. More people are going to Starbucks, and, once there, they're spending more. This marks the first time that traffic has grown in more than three years—since before the recession began. The company's operating margins were the highest in its history, growing to 13.4 percent. Of course, that's thanks largely to massive store closings and layoffs during the recession. But it can't happen without top-line growth.

While I'm not convinced that coffee sales at Starbuck's necessarily indicate market recovery, there might be an aspect to higher sales of comfort items that does indicate healthier markets. After all, when the economy is bad, the $3-5 cup of coffee might be the first thing to go for tight-budgeting consumers. More of a luxury or discretionary item that returns when finances are better. The return of consumer spending on discretionary items seems like a good thing. No hard science here, but the idea makes sense.

- JSM

Tales of a Prospective Homebuyer

Today's news reported that the tax credit is helping boost the market for existing home sales (See Bloomberg, U.S. Economy: Tax Credit Helping). The market for existing homes was up 6.8% in March. The homebuyer incentive runs through the end of April and provides an $8000 credit for new home buyers and $6500 for some other homebuyers who meet income requirements. (See, IRS: First-Time Homebuyer Credit).

The housing market is struggling for many reasons that affect current home owners and buyers alike. We are in the market for a new home as I will be joining the faculty at St. Thomas University in Miami next school year. So, we are looking for a home in South Florida. Weston, Florida to be precise. While I don't own a home in my name, I am not eligible for the tax credit as my spouse owns a home in Boston that we now rent out. And the income requirements on the lower credit put that out of reach. But, I am not complaining about that here today. So, what is it like to purchase a home in this market?

After spending a week over spring break viewing homes and making offers on several, we haven't yet secured a home. Well, we don't really need one until August anyways, but shouldn't this be easy with a housing market in crisis? The good news is that existing home sales in Florida are also up 24% over March 2009. (See, Florida's Existing Home). But, homeowners are in crisis in South Florida, with projections that recovery will not hit there meaningfully until 2011. See, Bloomberg: Florida's Housing Market). Despite the increase in sales, prices are down 3% over last year. The number of foreclosures and short sales are high. Due to depressed prices, people who don't have to sell their homes are not entering the market.

So, what did we find? A low inventory of existing homes and not too much to look at. Many homeowners in South Florida seem to have either bought high and are under water or bought low but have taken out additional mortgages on their homes making them underwater. That all ends with even homeowners who are not in trouble with their banks having difficulty selling because they either need to find a buyer who will way overpay over market (not overly likely) or come to a home sale closing with lots of cash. We saw plenty of homes where the seller must ask an over-market price because their mortgages are high, they don't have cash to close and don't qualify for a short sale. Other home owners have cash to close but are bitter at having to spend it this way on a home that is worth much less than two years prior.

Add to all of this short sales and foreclosures. We went to see one shortsale home that was unapproved by the bank where as we walked through the home the agent told us of all the things the current owner was going to remove from the home (appliances, light fixtures . . .). Shortsales can also take months to close if they ever do. We also saw a foreclosed home where the prior owner trashed the home before leaving, taking fixtures, ac units and just doing general damage to the home probably costing $100k to fix. (See, Some Ex-Owners Trashing; Owners of Foreclosed Homes Steal Appliances). Challenges indeed as this is more than I am interested in tackling at this point in time.

I've purchased homes before and always found it a pretty easy process. Most people tend to act rationally and agreeing to a deal for a home after some negotiation. While I am sure we will secure a home before August, tackling South Florida's real estate challenges is not the same as prior home purchases. If the federal government does not extend the tax credit, we may see this little increase dissipate. There are also plenty of foreclosures still in the pipeline that will continue to depress prices and hamper the market for some time. Homebuyers can purchase, but the market is just not the same.

- JSM

Obama Weekly Address on Financial Regulation

In case you missed Obama's address this past weekend on financial regulation, here it is:

No more taxpayer bailouts because a financial company is too big to fail was one of the key messages. Can this really happen? I am skeptical, but I guess we'll have to wait and see what the politicians agree to. Obama is correct in his assertion that something has to change in order to prevent the same crisis from reoccurring. Apparently, there will be much more coming on this issue in the near term.

- JSM

Federal Reserve Consumer Information on Overdrafts

With its new focus on being consumer-friendly, the Federal Reserve has published a circular on what consumers need to know about the new debit card overdraft rules. Remember, as of August 15th, banks cannot include customers in their overdraft services for ATM/Debit card transactions without their opting-in. The rules apply to new accounts opened beginning July 1. The Fed has even provided a copy of the standard form disclosure that it approved for banks to use, so that consumers can (hopefully) recognize the form when they get it in the mail (see Form). With an emphasis on consumer "choice" and education, it is good to see the Fed getting the word out.

Will consumers understand what this is all about? I suspect so. Just this last week, our 20 year old baby-sitter commented that she wished her bank, Chase, would follow Bank of America and give up on overdraft fees (See Hooray for Bank America). Apparently the word has gotten out positively for BOA. She'd been hit $35 on a debit card overdraft of less than $5. Expensive lesson, yes, but just one example where the new rules will help. Better to be denied at the counter, rather than get the hefty fee. I told her not to worry, the new rules are coming soon.

- JSM

Hooray for Bank of America's New Overdraft Rules?

Is the end of the $39 cup of coffee in sight (See How Your $4 Cup of Coffee Can Cost You)? Today, Bank of America announced that it is doing away with debit card overdraft fees and will just decline consumer transactions that result in an overdraft on their debit card (See Bank of America to End Bank Overdraft Fees). Seems that is just what consumer groups have said for some time that banks should do, but that some banks claimed they couldn't technologically do. Bank of America is crediting itself with listening to consumer preferences on debit cards and their desire to help customers avoid unexpected fees. Bank of America has turned into the kinder, consumer friendly bank? Apparently, they are even notifying customers now when an ATM withdrawl will result in an overdraft (and a $35 fee), rather than just pushing the transaction through. But not to worry, Bank of America will continue to have overdraft coverage that most consumers want on their checks and routine account payments. Rather than trying to convince customers that they really want the $39 cup of coffee, Bank of America has apparently caved on this one. Good for them. Doing the right thing by customers (even if under pressure from the Federal Reserve) is a big step. Hopefully, this will set the tone for other large banks to follow suit. Apparently Citibank has stopped charging overdrafts on debit and ATM transactions.

For those banks not doing away with these fees, the Federal Reserve's new opt-in rules on debit cards are due to come into effect on July 1, 2010. The Federal Reserve’s Final Rules came down on the side of the consumer on many issues. Because the Truth-in-Lending Act applies to credit cards, but does not apply to debit cards, the Federal Reserve’s Final Rules are under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) (EFTA). The thrust of the Final Rules is primarily disclosure and consent based, rather than tackling some of the troublesome banking practices involved in the processing of overdrafts for enrolled customers and the amount banks charge for overdraft services. Specifically, the Final Rules ensure that:

(1) banks cannot enroll customers in overdraft services for ATM and one time debit card transactions without their consent (an opt-in);
(2) banks do not condition the payment of overdrafts on other items, such as checks and ACH transactions, on the customer opting-in for ATM and debit card services and cannot decline overdrafts on checks and ACH transactions for this reason;
(3) banks provide the same account terms, conditions and features to customers whether or not they opt-in; and
(4) the opt-in approach applies to existing and new accounts beginning July 1, 2010.

The Final Rules specifically declined proposals regarding the practice of debit card holds, suggesting instead that banks, networks, and merchants should address this problem.

With any luck, we'll see other large banks doing away with the debit and ATM overdrafts over the coming months. Seems easy enough just to deny the transaction at the counter. Not sure I'd say this, but good job Bank of America.

- JSM

FunnyorDie.com Presidential Reunion

In case you've not seen it, former Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Ford, Carter and Reagan wake up President Obama in the middle of the night to urge him to pass the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). One of the funniest parts is President Bush commenting that he had no idea that when he put the Iraq war on his credit card, he'd be paying 28%! Here it is:

- JSM

New Sales Survey Available!

I've just put the new Sales Survey up on SSRN. It will be out in the Business Lawyer sometime next summer. An excerpt regarding a a fun warranty case, Nigro v. Lee, 63 A.D.3d 1490 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 2009) about a car sold on Ebay:

Whether a seller’s statements made during negotiations or through advertising constitute an express warranty is a common point of contention between disgruntled buyers and their sellers. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, of New York upheld summary judgment in favor of the defendant seller from Nevada who advertised a 1995 Mercedes Benz automobile on Ebay as “gorgeous” and with just minor blemishes, but sold the car “as is.” Upon arrival of the car to the buyer in New York, the buyer discovered the car had been damaged in an accident and had been painted, the upholstery was stained, the undercoating was worn out and parts were rusted, and that body work would cost $1,741.66. While the court recognized that any description of the goods could create an express warranty, the seller’s generalized expression was merely the seller's opinion of the car and constitutes “no more than ‘puffery,’ which should not have been relied upon as an inducement to purchase the vehicle,” particularly in light of the fact that this was a used car transaction. Moreover, the plaintiff could have discovered any deficiencies in the car by performing a routine inspection, which he did not do.

See U.C.C. 2-313.

- JSM

New Credit Card Rules Go Into Action

Happily, the CARD act provisions are in full effect now. So, what to look for on your statements? I think the disclosure about how long it will take you to pay off your credit card if you only pay the minimum is helpful, especially when coupled with how much you need to pay in order to pay off the debt in just three years. But, consumers must actually read the statements to get the disclosure . . .

CNN has a good piece on credit card reform (click here, as I could not embed it). With card companies increasing rates, there has been a greater proliferation of high rate cards. First Premier has a card for high risk customers that carries a 59.9% interest rate! Yikes! Interestingly, the National Credit Union Administration caps credit unions at 18% interest on credit union cards by law, but private card companies have no such similar limit (See LA Times, Seattle Times). Of course, its all about access to credit, according to the American Banker's Association. While I can understand access to credit and the need for people to build credit, 59.9% is over-the-top and at that rate perhaps some people should not be getting credit, as the cost is too high. Perhaps there is a role for the traditional usury statutes again.

Whose to blame for all this mess? Well, the Supreme Court had a part to play with its 1978 decision in Marquette vs. First Omaha Services making it legal under the National Bank Act for banks to locate in states without interest rate restrictions. Although the Court recognized that this would impair the effectiveness of state usury laws, the problem is "better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court." Despite the passage of the CARD Act, Congress has not addressed the interest rate differential. Perhaps the increases in rates after the CARD Act might provide some impetus for changes to the extent banks overreach in their charging of customers.

- JSM

UCC Legislative Update

It has been a fairly quiet eight months on the UCC legislative front since my last update.

Revised Article 1

As of March 1, 2010, Revised Article 1 was in effect in thirty-seven states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.

State legislatures continue to grapple with the definition of "good faith," although the uniform § R1-201(b)(20) definition has the upper hand. Of the 37 enacting states, 26 have adopted the uniform definition, while 11 have retained the pre-revised definition that, in conjunction with § 2-103(1)(b), imposes a different good faith standard on merchants and non-merchants. Effective July 1, 2010, one of those eleven minority states (Indiana) will join the majority as SB 501, enacted in 2009 primarily for the purpose of amending Articles 3 and 4, also revises Ind. Code § 26-1-1-201(19) to require all parties to act honestly and to observe reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. (At present, Indiana's Revised Article 1 requires only “honesty in fact.”) This change will take effect July 1, 2010, and further tip the balance among enacting states in favor of the unitary good faith definition in uniform R1-201(b)(20).

With many state legislatures occupied with more pressing issues of the moment, 2009 yielded only three new adoptions -- Alaska, Maine, and Oregon -- down from five in 2008, and seven in 2007. While a downward trend in new enactments eventually becomes inevitable once two-thirds of the states have signed on, 2009's three enactments were the fewest in a year since 2003 (when Idaho became the third state overall to enact Revised Article 1).

As of March 1, only two states -- Mississippi and Wisconsin -- appear to be serious candidates to enact Revised Article 1 in 2010.

Mississippi SB 2419, introduced and amended (to replace a choice-of-law provision that appeared to have derived from the original § R1-301 that all 37 enacting states have declined to adopt and the ALI and NCCUSL have disavowed with one that reflected the substitute § R1-301 the ALI and NCCUSL promulgated in 2008) in January, unanimously passed the Mississippi Senate on February 10. It is presently before the House Judiciary Committee.

Wisconsin AB 687, introduced on January 25 and amended on February 16 to replace the uniform R1-201(b)(20) "good faith" definition with the pre-revised 1-201(19) version, received the Assembly Committee on Financial Institutions's unanimous approval on February 26. It is presently before the Assembly Rules Committee.

Two other bills, Massachusetts HB 89 and Washington SB 5155, seem less likely to produce results.

Massachusetts HB 89, the fifth attempt to enact Revised Article 1 in the Commonwealth, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action had been reported as of March 1, 2010.

Washington SB 5155, introduced on January 15, 2009, appeared to be drawn directly from the language of official Revised Article 1 circa 2001, including the original version of § R1-301. At an initial public hearing on January 23, 2009, all those testifying in support of and in opposition to the bill opposed the choice-of-law provision. The Washington Senate appears to have taken no further action except to "reintroduce and retain [the bill] in present status" on January 11, 2010.


Article 2 and 2A Amendments

As of March 1, 2010, only three state legislatures (Kansas, Nevada, and Oklahoma) have considered bills proposing to enact the 2003 amendments to UCC Articles 2 and 2A. The Kansas and Nevada bills died on the vine.

In 2005, Oklahoma amended Sections 2-105 and 2A-103 of its Commercial Code to add that the definition of “goods” for purposes of Articles 2 and 2A, respectively, “does not include information,” see 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-105(1) & 2A-103(1)(h) (West 2009), and amended its Section 2-106 to add that “contract for sale” for purposes of Article 2 “does not include a license of information,” see id. § 2-106(1). The net effect is similar to having enacted Amended §§ 2-103(k) & 2A-103(1)(n), both of which exclude information from the meaning of “goods” for purposes of Article 2 and 2A, respectively. Otherwise, no state has enacted any of the 2003 amendments.

While the list of states enacting any of the 2003 amendments may not change in the near future, the number of amendments Oklahoma enacts may. Introduced on February 1, 2010, Oklahoma HB 3104 proposes amendments to forty-nine sections of Article 2 and four sections of Article 2A. The bill includes neither the reformulation of Sections 2-206 and 2-207 nor the addition of Sections 2-313A and 2-313B included in the 2003 Article 2 amendments. Many of the amendments appear designed to facilitate electronic signatures and transactions and to accommodate the terminology surrounding them that grows out of UETA, E-SIGN, and Revised UCC Articles 1 and 7, or to otherwise align Article 2 and 2A terminology with that used in Revised Articles 1 and 7. That is not to say that HB 3104 proposes only cosmetic changes to Oklahoma's versions of Articles 2 and 2A. Several of the proposed amendments alter existing substantive rights, obligations, or remedies. Some of those alterations (e.g., raising the § 2-201 floor from $500 to $5,000) do not seem to be inherently controversial; some (e.g., granting/recognizing a right to cure after a justifiable revocation) may or may not be controversial depending on how courts have interpreted the current Article 2; and some (e.g., giving sellers the right to recover consequential damages) do seem inherently controversial. More on this if the bill progresses.


Article 3 and 4 Amendments

As of March 1, 2010, the 2002 amendments to Articles 3 and 4 were in effect in eight states: Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for a second time), South Carolina, and Texas. They will take effect in Indiana on July 1, 2010.

As of March 1, 2010, the only pending Articles 3 and 4 bill is Massachusetts HB 90, which has been languishing for more than a year.


Revised Article 7

As of March 1, 2010, Revised UCC Article 7 was in effect in thirty-six states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Additional bills are currently pending in Georgia, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin; but only the Wisconsin bill appears to be making any progress.

First introduced on February 18, 2009, Georgia HB 451 won unanimous approval in the Georgia House on March 12, and the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended passage on March 26. However, the legislature adjourned on April 3 without a third reading and final action in the senate. HB 451 was "recommitted" to the Georgia Senate on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.

Massachusetts HB 89, which also proposes adopting Revised Article 1, was assigned to the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies on January 20, 2009. No further action has been reported.

Washington SB 5154 was introduced on January 15, 2009, scheduled for a public hearing on January 23, 2009, and then stalled, like its Revised Article 1 counterpart, but without as compelling a reason. It was "reintroduced and retained in present status" on January 11, 2010. No further action has been reported.

Wisconsin AB 688 was introduced on January 25, 2010. On February 22, the Assembly Committee on Jobs, the Economy and Small Business unanimously recommended passage. The bill is now before the Assembly Rules Committee.

ESPN on How to Create Markets

Humorous link on supply and demand. Though I must agree. Mike Greenberg is far more valuable than Kenny Mayne!

The Roller Coaster Ride of Bankruptcy

When this news story popped into my feeder today, I knew Google understands me. Roller Coasters, Fixtures, Bankruptcy, Creditor priority challenges... Its all there.

Six Flags Inc., currently in chapter 11 Bankruptcy, has decided to close its Louisville Park -- Kentucky Kingdom. The dispute relates to the ownership of certain rides in the park. The creditors are Six Flags America and the State of Kentucky. The state of Kentucky (in what appears to be a futile argument) alleges that the rides are affixed to the realty and therefore belong to the state of Kentucky. (The park leased the real property from the State of Kentucky for a term of years). The state also argues that the lease provides that if Six Flags terminates the lease with the state, the landlord will accede to the ownership of the rides.

Taking these issues separately, its clear that the lease agreement between Six Flags and the State of Kentucky establishes certain privileges to personalty on behalf of Six Flags (the tenant). Under the common law trade fixtures doctrine, a tenant has the right to remove those things he attaches to the realty in furtherance of his trade. (I believe its pretty clear that amusement rides would be in furtherance of Six Flag's trade). The single caveat is if the fixtures cannot be removed without damage to the realty. Thus, the rides are not treated as realty, but rather as personalty.

Taking the state's argument that a provision in the lease grants it an interest in the rides if Six Flags terminates its contract with the state, there seems to me to be a question of what type of interest the state obtains. First, in theory the state could obtain such a right, at least in as much as lessees may grant an interest in its property to its lessor. The question is what kind of transaction does this grant create. It seems that when a creditor (in this case a landlord) reduces its claim to a debtor's (in this case a tenant's) property, that is a security interest, and therefore must comply with the provisions of Article 9 -- the problematic point being if there is another creditor in the picture. The state may very well have a security interest, but may lose out in the priority scheme if other creditors have a claim.

If the state's position is that it has a state possessory lien on the tenant's possessions for failure to pay rentals (which does not appear to be the state's theory), the case may be more clear cut -- particularly given the preference for liens under Article 9-333.

Whichever it is, we will keep an eye on this case to see what the bankruptcy court does with the various roller coasters. If the Court needs (after a safety evaluation) a thrill description of the roller coasters in Kentucky Kingdom park, I would be happy to offer my services; though I suspect I would need to include at least four other theme parks in my assessment in order for my report to be complete.

Image is of the Chang Roller Coaster, Courtesy of Coaster Gallery. Chang's statistics are:

Built: 1997

Composition: Steel

Height: 154 Feet

Drop: 144 Feet

Top Speed: 63 mph

Ride Time: 2 Minutes, 30 seconds

MLR (Marc )

Odel Initiative on Consumer Protection Legislation

Professor David Oedel over at Mercer University Law School is heading up a legislative proposal that some of you might be interested in signing onto:

Dear Senators and Congresspersons,

As law professors concerned about encouraging the most thoughtful, effective and flexible forms of financial reregulation, we urge that federal law should permit states also to protect financial consumers. In other words, any new financial regulation emerging from Congress this year should include a provision that would allow states the freedom to protect financial consumers with state rules that are stricter than (but consistent with) the minimum consumer protection standards established by federal law. This basic model of state regulatory freedom to protect state interests in ways that do not conflict with federal law has worked well in a number of other arenas, such as in some areas of environmental protection and insurance. Our sense is that many recent financial troubles could have been averted had the states been freer to regulate on behalf of their consumers on the main streets of their states.

We do not propose to alter the current law of federal preemption as it relates to national systemic safety and soundness. Our proposal is only to free up state innovation on matters of consumer financial protection.

Thank you for your consideration.

If you are interested in being a part of this initiative, contact Dave at oedel_dg@law.mercer.edu with e-mail, including your name, title, and institution.

- JSM

The CISG and the Vis International Moot: Twin Ideas for Effective Lawyering in a Globalized World

This year marks the 17th anniversary of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot (The Moot.) The Moot takes place annually in the Spring in Vienna, Austria with participants from over 100 law schools hailing from civil and common law countries. The journey is not only a milestone for the student participants, but a bridge to international understanding through the rule of law. The Moot engages students in the art of effective advocacy, and conveys the important message that the adversarial process is not necessarily an arena for gladiators.

The stated goal of the Moot is "to foster the study of international commercial law and arbitration for the resolution of international business disputes through its application to a concrete problem of a client and to train law leaders of tomorrow in methods of alternative dispute resolution." (www.cisg.law.pace.edu/vis.html).

I was privileged to participate in the Ninth Moot in 2001-2002, while a student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. One year later, I served as coach to a group of students at the Meiji Gakuin University in Tokyo, Japan. Both events galvanized the premise that law schools in the United States need to engage students in this level of competition to enhance legal education. Specifically, participation in the Moot will bolster legal writing and advocacy skills. The message is being heard as each year, more law schools are discovering the Moot. Some law schools in the United States and Europe have incorporated the Moot into the curriculum. For example, Touro Law School and the University of Pittsburgh have collaborated with schools in Central and Eastern Europe to offer a summer program structured around the Moot. (www.law.pitt.edu/academics/cile/jdprogram/studyabroad).

In the area of advocacy, preparation for the Moot will be extremely beneficial, even to first year law students. In this critical area, the Moot provides students with skills in the art of persuasion. Not only do particpants learn to write persuasive arguments, but they develop, and hone the nuances of rhetoric on the international stage. The Moot is organized around a contractual problem, which asks students to analyze the articles of the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) (www.uncitral.org). As such, students are exposed to the work of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, and acquire the added bonus of exposure to comparative legal systems. Specifically, for U.S. law students comparing the rules of Article 2 of the UCC with the CISG is both challenging and exciting. As a result, participants in the Moot develop critical skills in international commercial law that even seasoned lawyers lack.

Moreover, the CISG is at the heart of the Moot. This treaty espouses the theory that economic rights are human rights. The treaty provides uniform rules governing certain aspects of the making and performance of everyday commercial contracts for the sale of goods. Article 7 of the CISG provides that "the adoption of uniform rules, which govern contracts for the international sale of goods should take into account the different social, economic and legal systems." The CISG was created to foster the development of international trade on the basis of equality and mutual benefit as an important element in promoting friendly relations among states. The CISG aims to promote international trade by removing legal barriers in international trade, and to unify the sales law of international trade.

Although the focus of the moot is commercial arbitration, the format of the Moot serves several pedagogical needs. Foremost among them is a focus on the representation of clients from diverse backgrounds and diverse legal systems. In this age of globalization and multiculturalism, the Moot provides ample opportunity for students' exposure to crucial interpersonal lawyering skills. Participation in the Moot exposes students to principles of fairness in international contracts, which will instill an awareness of multiculturalism and widen the lenses of their worldview. In addition, the Moot provides students with the opportunity for research and writing, oral adovacy and treaty interpretation.

Each year, the Moot problem focuses on issues of contract drafting, which helps students understand choice of law issues. In the practical context, students learn the importance of effective drafting. These issues allow students to grapple with civil and common law systems of procedure. Although the advocacy space is based primarily on arbitration principles, this forum provides participants with the rhetorical skills needed for effective advocacy, albeit in a non-confrontational and less adversarial manner. In addition, preparation for the Moot can bolster student confidence, and help prepare them for oral advocacy.

Finally, the tenets of multicultural lawyering form the bedrock of the CISG. As outlined in its preamble, the overarching goal of the CISG is to erase disparities in international trade. The CISG espouses the principles of effective lawyering through its emphasis on the use of simpler, clearer language in international contracts. According to Professor Harry Flechtner, the CISG seeks the "ommission of awesome relics through its push for a unified language in the drafting of international contracts." See John Honnold, Uniform Law for International Sales Under the 1980 United Nations Convention 30 (Harry Flechtner ed., 4th ed. 2009). This transformative capacity of the Vis Moot and the CISG to improve communication across cultures and transfer the rule of law around the globe will enhance the law school experience, and add value to the lawyering process for law students and practitioners.

Citibank's Promise of Free Checking

What does it mean to be free? When many of us open up a new checking account, it is with the intention of doing business with that bank for a period of time. After all, I've not got my online banking set up to send up bill payments. I've ordered printed checks for when I need them. I've got my debit card. It is a hassle to switch banks and have to redo all this. So, it is important that banks disclose account fees at the outset.

So might have believed customers over at Citibank who opened checking accounts advertised as free. Despite the free-hook, Citibank announced that it would begin imposing account fees on these same customers. Apparently about 1 million free accounts were included. The Truth In Savings Act requires banks to disclose account fees. So, free means free. Moreover, one might expect the free status to last for some time. Not surprisingly then, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo's office complained about the Citibank fee increase. Today, Citibank announced that free will remain free, putting aside overdraft and other fees, for the time being. (See Citibank to Keep Free Checking).

- JSM

Interchange Fees: the Silent Visa Tax

As we've seen the federal government tackle credit, debit and gift cards, new attention is gearing up toward card network interchange fees. Interchange fees are the cost of using debit and credit cards charged to merchants for use of the network (Visa, Mastercard, etc.). The fees are about $.75 for every $100 spent and more than if the consumer uses the a debit card and enters their pin number. The GAO's November 2009 report on Rising Interchange Fees found the fees are posing a problem for merchants as they comprise a larger amount of the revenue earned with some merchants complaining that the benefit of cards such as lower labor costs and increased sales are outstripped by the cost of the interchange fees. The fees are enough that some discount retailers, like Costco, don't accept credit cards, but will allow the debit card usage. Of course, retailers cannot possibly refuse to accept VISA cards, for instance, so the fees are here to stay. While the fees may be here to stay, I suspect that the size of the fees will cause them to come under regulatory supervision at some point in the not so distant future. That seems to be the common result when greed and overreaching get to a point that complaint is loud enough. With small business owners trying to keep their businesses afloat during a recession, it is easy to see why there is more compaint about the size of interchange fees.

The New York Times just did a nice video (and article) giving a pretty good overview of the tension between the networks, merchants and ultimately consumer interests.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

- JSM

The Politics of Bernanke's Reappointment

The Senate today confirmed Chairmen Bernanke's reappointment to a second term at the Federal Reserve by a vote of 70 to 30 (See Bernanke Confirmed). As concerns abounded about the extent of the Federal Reserve's independence, Senator Schummer commented: “If you don’t like monetary policy when the Fed does it just wait until the politicians get their hands on it.” Well said. Bloomberg did a nice (and short) piece about the politics of the reappointment and the need for the Federal Reserve Chariman to go visiting with the politicians to keep his job.

- JSM

Are Mobile Payments the Next Big Thing?

Forget all this business about credit cards (What You Need to Know About the CARD Act), debit cards (What the Fed's New Overdraft Rules Don't Do) and gift cards (Fed Targets Gift Cards). Here comes mobile payments! Mobile what? At least that is what I said to myself when Jim Chen sent me a link to a CBS article The Mobile Triple Threat (Jan. 22, 2010). Perhaps I've just been in denial that this was coming down the pipeline for real (or too busy complaining about the drawbacks of debit cards). Without knowning more, I found myself reacting "don't even think about doing this . . ." Well, perhaps that is a tad harsh. Merchants are serious about opening this door as handheld phones and readers have increasing amounts of applications for them. And, tighter credit and debit card rules couldn't hurt their motivation either, right?



The whole idea here is that the consumer could be in a store looking at merchandise and not only do research on the product using their mobile device, but also check inventory and make payment for the product (by a charge to their cell phone bill). Other possibilities include small credit card terminals that small merchants could plug into their own mobile device in order to run a customer's credit card (See, Twitter Co-Founder Tackles Mobile Payments). Pretty cool and technically beyond my expertise (See, Discover: Contactless Payment Sticker Users Inadvertently Crippling Performance). But . . . payments wise, this presents the same (and more) problems than consumers just paying at the register with their credit or debit cards. Surely, there are issues about how well the application transfers money and what to do about errors. One would hate to be walking through Best Buy with your phone in your pocket and accidentally purchase several televisions. Moreover, the risk of credit card data being misused or misappropriated is already a problem without the involvement of mobile devices. Poor reliability and speed follow along as potential pitfalls.

Apparently, Paypal, Google and Amazon already have mobile payments capability, so mobile payments appear to be upon us. Mobile payments companies are beginning to receive funding for their ventures, so this will be an area to watch develop (Mobile Payments Startup Boku Lands $25 million). Always a big question regarding payment methods is the cost associated with its use and disclosure to consumers. For me, it will be a while before I pay using my phone.

- JSM

The Big One!

Bless them boys, Who Dat! and Geaux Saints! As someone that spent most of my life in Louisiana, the Saint's getting to the Superbowl feels like an impossible dream that just came true. As someone who lived in New Orleans most of my adult life, who watched from afar after moving away from Louisiana the city that was the state's most visible symbol destroyed by the "big one," that no one thought would come seeing the Saints eligible to play in the "Big Game," that again, no one thought would come, seems surreal. In New Orleans before Katrina, the newscasts would advertise for hurricane preparedness, asking proverbally "what if the big one hit New Orleans." Well it did, and the city has never been the same. For many, the New Orleans Saints represented a break from the reality of mold covered homes and lost possessions -- a way to forget that the city they loved was now forever marked by the eye of a perfect storm, that destroyed lives, houses, and hopes. No symbol was more emblematic than the Superdome -- a building whose exterior mirrored the cities pain for so long.

Tonight's game was bigger than football. It seemed to confirm that the past is over. And maybe that's ok. In New Orleans, the past, before Katrina seemed ideal. It was the after-Katrina world that was so scary. But tonight's win in the same dome where people's lives in the city were forever changed, maybe offers a glimmer of hope. Perhaps the future can be better than the past was. The past was filled with inequality and political cronyism. Maybe that has not changed, but with every new day lies new hope. The Saint's showed that the future does not have to be worst than the past.

In reality, the last few minutes of the game seemed to encapsulate the Saint's and New Orleans' history. The Saint's offense seemed more like the aints' after the first half; the defense gave up first downs and big plays; and the season seemed like so many others of late -- lots of promise, but just short of the big one. And then, as if by divine intervention, the Big Ones came -- the biggest interception; the biggest forty-yard kick-off return; the biggest fourth and inches conversion, and the biggest forty-yard field goal; and, perhaps, the biggest win that the team and the city of New Orleans needed. The future is bright. The only thing I think I can say to match my thoughts -- Bless them Boys! And Geaux Saints.

And now, pulling a trick from Dean Chen's book, I can think of no better song to offer you than U2 and Greenday's The Saints are Coming

Marc (MLR)

Bankers Without a Clue?

Paul Krugman wrote a nice op ed piece in today's New York Times titled Bankers Without a Clue. Krugman observes disappointingly that the bankers just don't get it. In truth, comments like the financial crisis was just a perfect storm (Goldman Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein) and that no one could have predicted its coming (Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase & Co.) are pretty unbelievable. I hope that the executives of these large financial insitutions aren't and weren't really that clueless. That said, I agree with Krugman that I don't expect the banks to give much concrete advice on financial reform. The distrust the banks have of regulators (and desire to protect their own pocketbooks) has resulted in many of the banks repaying the TARP funds as soon as possible.

Bill Thomas who is Vice Chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has assured us that at least the questions will be asked. Question is, whether any meaningful financial overhaul will come from this?

-jsm

What You Need to Know About the Card Act

For consumers looking for basic information about the CARD Act, the Federal Reserve just published What You Need to Know: New Credit Card Rules. What credit card companies must tell you:

• when they plan to increase your rate and fees
• how long it will take you to pay off your balance.

The circular also covers all the new rules on fees, rates and limits:

• no rate increases for new cards in the first year
• rate increases only apply to new charges
• restrictions on over-the-limit transactions
• caps on high fee cards
• protections for underage consumers (under 21)

Finally, the circular contains some new rules on billing and payments:

• standardized payment dates and times (i.e. payments due on the same day each month)
• payments applied to highest risk first
• no two-cycle billing.

All and all, the circular is easy to read and even contains handy definitions and links to other information. Hopefully, consumers will be able to find this easily on the Internet (and will read it). Three cheers to the Fed for trying to get the word out.

- JSM

Spot Light Shines on Debit Card Interchange (Finally)

For several years now the hot payment card story has been the rising interchange fees effectively paid by merchants to card-issuing banks on credit card transactions. A major class action attacking those fees is well underway, and the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, has an open investigation.

Commentators have disagreed about whether market competition between Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover could yield an appropriate interchange fee or whether more aggressive industry regulation is required. Some say that the only competition is to increase fees to encourage banks to issue a particular network's cards. But some historical evidence suggests that competition among networks does create pressure to lower interchange fees to increase merchant acceptance. There has also been considerable debate about whether interchange fees constitute an unfair tax on those who do not use credit cards.

Surprisingly, however, debit card interchange fees have coasted under the radar since the 2003 settlement in which Visa and MasterCard agreed to pay merchants $3 billion and permit the acceptance of credit cards but not off-line signiture debit cards. At that time, Visa also significantly lowered the interchange fee on its signiture debit cards.

Today's New York Times has a front page story Visa's Strategy in Debit Cards: Push Up Costs by Andrew Martin taking Visa to task for its more recent debit card pricing practices. This attention is long overdue. In contrast to credit cards, the case against Visa and MasterCard's interchange fee pricing practices and the need for regulation are much stronger in the debit arena. Under the right conditions, American Express and Discover could possibly serve as a competitive check on credit card fees, but neither has a significant enough presence in the debit market to challenge the banks issuing Visa and MasterCard. And while the spending flexibility created by credit cards creates significant benefits for consumers and potentially increased sales for merchants -- benefits that may outweigh the cost of credit cards -- debit card benefits are considerably more limited for both consumers and merchants, and their costs are thus significantly less likely to be justified.

The development of debit cards is quite interesting. They began as extensions of ATM cards issued by regional networks of banks with the goal of saving costs by encouraging consumers to switch away from paper checks. Interchange fees were virtually non-existant and, in some cases, banks even paid merchants and consumers to stimulate use of the cards. But banks faced two problems. Like ATM cards, these early debit cards required the entry of a PIN, and most merchants did not have card acceptance systems that could handle PIN entry. Second, because the cards did not generate significant revenue for the banks, they could not justify investing in the advertising necessary to educate consumers about the cards.

Visa responded in the mid-1980s by creating a signiture-based debit card that could run over the Visa credit card network. It permitted any merchant accepting credit cards to also accept debit. And because the card was priced at near credit card levels, the banks were willing to support heavy advertising to stimulate debit card use. The scheme worked. Debit card use exploded.

An initial period of competition arose between Visa and the regional networks (as well as MasterCard) which argued that on-line PIN-based debit was a safer, lower cost option compared to Visa's signiture debit. During this era, Citibank's representative on the Visa board reportedly called the regional network operators "through-put jockeys" because they cared only about increasing volume on the network without paying sufficient attention to bank profits. The campaign thus began to encourage consumers to use signiture debit -- despite the greater potential for fraud and higher processing costs -- through rewards programs and other methods.

These practices led to a mid-1990s major class action led by Walmart and Sears, arguing that Visa and MasterCard illegal tied acceptance of signiture debit cards to credit cards. Six years later, Visa and MasterCard agree to settle the case by permitting merchants accepting credit cards to reject signiture debit and to reduce signiture debit interchange fees.

Although PIN acceptance is now widespread, expensive signiture debit remains a significant market force shifting billions of dollars annually from the retail industry to the banking industry. Why? After the settlement, very few merchants refused to accept signiture debit, fearing that they could lose customers. Today, Costco limits acceptance to PIN debit, and a few other major retailers try to steer customers to PIN, but most do not. In addition, even before the settlement, Visa began a strategy of increasing the interchange fees on its own PIN debit cards, including a major jump in 2007 that left its PIN system's interchange only slightly below its signiture debit interchange. The strategy has had the dual benefit of (1) forcing MasterCard and the regional networks to increase their PIN debit interchange to avoid losing bank support to Visa, and (2) discouraging merchants from disfavoring signiture debit by reducing the pricing spread. A former regional debit network CEO, Ronald Congemi, bemoaned Visa's strategy in the Times article: “What we witnessed was truly a perverse form of competition. They competed on the basis of raising prices. What other industry do you know that gets away with that?”

Critically, debit card issuance is much less costly for card issuers than credit card issuance. Debit cards are issued virtually costlessly to checking account holders as part of the ATM card package. Moreover, they carry virtually no credit risk for the issuer, as the money for the charge is removed from the checking account promptly for signiture debit and immediately for on-line PIN debit. On-line PIN debit also dramatically reduces fraud risk.

Perhaps because credit interchange fees have increased so much, debit cards may appear to be a good deal for merchants. But given the cost differences for card issuers, debit card fees may be much less justifiable and thus a more appropriate target for regulatory attention.

Commercial Law Course Survey Update

I have received 70 responses so far. Once again, I am only reporting the raw numbers to this point, so the percentages reflect the number of times the course option was selected as against the other options (including write in variations). I also include a list of institutions in which someone has posted a response, so if your institution is not represented, please take two minutes to complete the survey by clicking here.

Thanks

Marc (MLR)

Martin, Evans, Wright and More on Consumer Issues in New Lydian Payments Journal

A little self promotion and more. Take a look at the new Lydian Payments Journal. The December issue features:

1. David Evans and Joshua Wright: How the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 Would Change the Law and Regulation of Consumer Financial Products
2. Jennifer S. Martin: What You Should Know about the Debit Card in Your Wallet: Where the Federal Reserve's New Overdraft May Fall Short
3. Francesc Prior Sanz and Javier Santomá: Banking the Unbanked Using Prepaid Platforms and Mobile Telephones in the U.S.
4. Ulf Mattsson: Demystifying PCI Technologies

Happy reading! Yes, after reading all the examinations. I've got a stack of first year Contracts exams coming my way this afternoon.

- JSM

Commercial Law Welcomes Glenys Spence!

Commercial Law is pleased to announce Professor Glenys Spence as our newest guest blogger. Professor Spence practiced civil litigation and immigration law both as a solo practitioner as well as with JBM Immigration Group. In her practice she has represented clients in family-based immigration and deportation defense since 2007. Glenys is an Assistant Professor at Phoenix School of Law. Professor Spence's research focuses on the United Nations Convention on the International Sale of Goods. We hope to hear her thoughts on the CISG and other commercial topics!

- JSM

What the Fed's New Overdraft Rules Don't Do

Now that classes are over, I've been wanting to turn back to the Federal Reserve's new rules bank overdraft programs (See Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules). Here's a portion of an essay that I've put together for the Lydian Payments Journal:

The largest problems facing regulation of consumer depository accounts are ones created by the need to keep regulations in pace with innovation. That is, bank innovation results in products on the marketplace that are either completely new or are comprised of such variation that the products might as well be new. Services associated with debit cards are a perfect example because debit cards were not commonplace until the late 1990s. Debit cards attach to regular bank depository accounts, yet are not checks, pure ATM cards, or even credit cards. Due to the changing nature of banking products, any regulation must be flexible, rather than static. With respect to debit cards, innovation has progressed unchecked in the wake of consumer excitement for the innovation itself, without creating a parallel regulatory framework. Accordingly, any discussion of the issues consumer depository accounts should take up an examination of the relationship between consumers and banks and explore possible improvements to existing regulatory structure so it may better adapt to innovations in banking products.

Full disclosure of the benefits and detriments of the overdraft programs prior an active enrollment decision is the best approach. If under the Final Rules a consumer enrolls in overdraft protection, resolution of assent and fairness hinges upon the disclosure of the terms of the overdraft service and the practices involved in securing assent. For instance, even though Regulation DD affirmatively requires disclosure of fees, a GAO study found that consumers have difficulty obtaining account terms and conditions and complete fee information even when requested. Moreover, even if the bank discloses the fees, the government does not regulate the reasonableness of fees or the manner in which they are imposed. The terms of overdraft fees are most likely ones of “adhesion,” in that they are offered or imposed without the ability to negotiate them, “take it or leave it” terms. If the GAO is correct, then Banks often fail to disclose the terms at all, even when asked. So, will the Final Rules result in substantial changes in banking practices?

Disclosure is at the cornerstone to most consumer regulations and is the primary prong of financial regulation. The Final Rules address disclosure issues primarily through the model opt-in form that accompanies the rules (the “form”). Importantly, the form: (i) requires that banks affirmatively give customers knowledge of enrollment in overdraft services; (ii) specifies the fee amounts that a bank charges per overdraft transaction, any daily fee charged for the account being overdrawn, and any daily limits on overdraft fees; and (iii) contains information about other, less costly banking services and where the consumer can obtain more information. These changes are significant because under current practice banks enroll many consumers without their knowledge or consent and without such disclosures. Up front disclosure is a key feature of the Final Rules, especially since consumers sometimes have difficulty obtaining fee terms at many banks despite Regulation DD requirements of fee disclosure. Of course, no form is perfect and there remains the potential for consumer confusion.

Curbing bank practices that disadvantage consumers by increasing the amount of overdraft fees incurred is the second prong in the solution to the problems with overdraft protection services banks currently offer. On this point, the Final Rules fall short. Although the Proposed Overdraft Rules addressed the issue of debit card holds by reducing many of the holds from days to just hours, the Final Rules contain no restrictions on holds, leaving wide discretion for the length and size of holds. It is doubtful that a consumer who goes out to gas up the car and buy groceries will know that in order to avoid an overdraft fee caused by a two hour gas pump hold on their card, he or she may want to buy groceries before gas when account balances are low. The Final Rules also do not take up other banking practices that increase the amount of overdraft fees, such as batch reordering of transactions from largest to smallest.

The final prong of any solution regarding overdraft fees must address the size and numerosity of fees imposed for consumers who opt-in the service. While banks typically impose credit card over the limit fees on a monthly basis, banks charge overdraft fees on a per transaction basis. Some consumers may continue to believe that credit and debit cards work the same in this respect. Consumers also tend to believe that government regulation is merit oriented, rather than disclosure based. While some in Congress have urged restrictions on overdraft fees to a “proportional” amount, the Final Rules do not take up fee size (see Dodd Says Senate May Expand Beyond Fed Overdrafts). To the extent that some banks charge overdraft fees on NSFs of less than $5, the size of the fee imposed is clearly material to consumers. Some banks have altered current practices to address this issue.

While the Final Rules represent an improvement over the status quo in terms of informing consumers about enrollment in overdraft services, they do not represent a complete solution to open issues of debit and ATM overdrafts. From the industry perspective, there are genuine operational issues at some banks that will require retooling of existing systems. Much of this must take place by July 1, 2010. Despite the successes in the Final Rules, consumers should not believe that they represent a panacea for overdrafts. If they do, disappointment will follow. This type of regulation is long overdue, probably owing to the more recent development of the product and regulatory system’s inability to respond effectively and promptly to developing issues in newer products. At its simplest, a solution to the problems of consumer choice and disclosure in debit card overdrafts favors a default rule system that gives the consumers an arrangement with the lowest cost. Despite the criticisms herein, the Final Rules go a long way toward that goal.

- JSM

Call for Papers: February 2010 Contracts Conference at UNLV

UNLV's William S. Boyd School of Law will host a two-day conference, February 26 & 27, 2010, designed to afford scholars and teachers at all experience levels (including those preparing to enter the academy and those whose primary teaching appointment is not in a law school) an opportunity to present/demonstrate and discuss (formally and informally) recently-published and accepted-but-not-yet-published scholarship, works-in-progress, as-yet-fully-formed ideas for scholarship, and pedagogical innovations, and to network with colleagues -- and potential collaborators or mentors -- from around the country and the rest of the (predominantly) common-law world.

Invitation: We invite paper, presentation, and panel proposals exploring any aspect of contract law, theory, and policy writ large (including, but not limited to, bankruptcy/insolvency, commercial law, consumer law, dispute resolution regimes, family law, insurance law, legal systems, and restitution, in addition to more traditional contract topics) from a behavioral, comparative, critical, doctrinal, economic, empirical, equitable, historical, institutional, interdisciplinary, jurisprudential, pedagogical, philosophical, policy-driven, or political perspective. We also solicit volunteers to serve as moderators or discussants for panels that are not "packaged deals."

The CFPs issued earlier this year for the AALS Section on Contracts' January annual meeting program on New Approaches to Teaching Contracts: A "Teach-In" and the AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law's January annual meeting program on The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: A Phoenix Rising from the Ashes of Article 2B and UCITA? each yielded more excellent proposals than either section could accommodate in New Orleans. Both topics remain quite relevant, and I hope to assemble one or more panels on each that will continue the conversations begun in New Orleans. I am also working on the opening plenary, my UNLV colleague Jeff Stempel is organizing a panel on insurance contracts, and Wayne Barnes (Texas Wesleyan) is organizing a panel on comparative contract law and theory. Those efforts, if all bear fruit, still leave room for many more presenters, moderators, and discussants.

We will try to accommodate as many presenters, moderators, and discussants as possible. We particularly encourage junior scholars and those who work in non-U.S. legal systems to propose papers or panels and to volunteer to serve as a discussant or moderator. We also welcome anyone who wishes to attend the conference without presenting or serving as a discussant or moderator. The educational and networking benefits alone are worth the price of admission.

Publication: There is no publication requirement for conference participants, although experience suggests that individual papers and panels often find good homes. The Nevada Law Journal encourages participants to submit individual and panel papers and hopes to publish several works from the conference in upcoming issues.

Likely Attendees: In addition to me, Jeff Stempel, and Wayne Barnes (mentioned above), as of November 18, the following have committed to attend, or expressed a strong desire to attend: Eniola Akindemowo (Thomas Jefferson), Roy Anderson (SMU), Wayne Barnes, Dan Barnhizer (Michigan State), Charles Calleros (Arizona State), Hazel Glenn Beh (Hawaii), Barbara Bucholtz (Tulsa), Gerald Caplan (McGeorge), Miriam Cherry (McGeorge), Carol Chomsky (Minnesota), Karen Cross (John Marshall), Sidney DeLong (Seattle), Larry DiMatteo (Florida, Warrington College of Business), Jay Feinman (Rutgers-Camden), Marjorie Florestal (McGeorge), David A. Friedman (Willamette), Larry Garvin (Ohio State), Danielle Kie Hart (Southwestern), Nicholas Johnson (Fordham), Yong-Sung Jonathan Kang (U. of Washington), Tadas Klimas (Lithuania), Chuck Knapp (UC-Hastings), George Kuney (Tennessee), Peter Linzer (Houston), Charles Martin (Florida Coastal), Jennifer Martin (Oregon), Meredith Miller (Touro), Marcy Peek (Whittier), Joe Perillo (Fordham), Deborah Post (Touro), Michael Pratt (Queen's University/Ontario), Cheryl Preston (BYU), Scott Pryor (Regent), Val Ricks (South Texas), Caprice Roberts (West Virginia), Irma Russell (Tulsa), Adam Scales (Washington & Lee), Andrew Schwartz (Colorado), Sean Scott (Loyola-L.A.), Jeff Stempel, Otto Stockmeyer (Cooley), Howard Walthall (Cumberland), Jarrod Wong (Pacific), and Debbie Zalesne (CUNY). All this without a proper CFP until now. I expect attendance will be at least double this number.

Submitting a Proposal: If you would like to propose a presentation or panel, please e-mail a title, brief description, and any supporting materials by January 4, 2010 to keith.rowley@unlv.edu or snail-mail it to me at 4505 S. Maryland Pkwy., Box 451003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-1003. If you would like to discuss or moderate, please let me know your interests and availability by January 4. We will evaluate proposals as they come in and will consider on a space-available basis any we receive after January 4.

Preliminary Schedule: The conference program will begin both Friday and Saturday morning no later than 9:00 a.m. (grazing and conversational opportunities will start earlier) and will run until 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. each day.

Accommodations: The Hyatt Place next to campus (4520 Paradise Road, Las Vegas, NV 89169) is holding a block of rooms at the rate of $118.00 per night (plus tax). The official deadline for hotel registration at the conference rate is January 25, 2010. However, I encourage you to book sooner, as we blocked a limited number of rooms (due to the The Hyatt Place requiring the law school to guarantee at least 80% occupancy and pay the difference if actual registration was less than we anticipate) and will be more likely to get the Hyatt Place to make the conference rate available to additional attendees if early registration is robust.

To book a conference-rate room at The Hyatt Place, go to http://www.lasvegas.place.hyatt.com/; choose a check-in date no earlier than February 25, 2010 and a check-out date no later than February 28, 2010; enter group code G-BOYD for Boyd School of Law Contracts Conference in the box labeled Group/Corporate #; hit the check availability button; if a room is available, verify that your group name is specified next to rate details and if everything matches, then hit book. If you have trouble booking online, or if you prefer to reserve a room over the phone, please call the hotel at (702) 369-3366.

Transportation: For attendees who stay at the conference hotel, The Hyatt Place provides airport shuttle service and we'll provide transportation between the Hyatt Place and the law school for those not wanting to walk the mile or so. Attendees who prefer to stay on The Strip or elsewhere are responsible for their own transportation.

Sustenance: Your registration fee will cover the costs of lunches both days and a reception and dinner Friday evening, as well as coffee, fruit, and baked goods each morning and cold beverage service and morsels each afternoon. The Hyatt Place also offers a complimentary continental breakfast, which might be particularly attractive to those whose body clocks are on Eastern or Central Time.

Registration: We're still finalizing the conference registration fee and process. The registration fee will be no more than $250. This is higher than past spring contracts conferences. Fortunately, the lower conference hotel rate than at prior conferences, free airport transportation for those staying at the conference hotel, and the relative ease and low cost of flying into and out of Las Vegas's McCarran Airport (which is less than two miles from the hotel) compared to the last three venues, will offset the higher registration fee.

Commercial Law Course Survey

I have received 43 responses to the survey on Commercial Law Courses that I posted yesterday. See below for the results so far (note that right now I am only reporting the raw numbers, but I may break the numbers down further as information continues to come in). Also the percentages at this point reflect the number of courses offered, not the number of institutions offering the course. As more numbers come in, I will break down the numbers to reflect institutional offerings, rather than mere occurrences. If you have not entered information on behalf of your school, please do so by clicking here. Its a very short survey and only takes two minutes to complete, if that.

Commercial Law Offerings

I am doing a quick curriculum survey of commercial law offerings at various schools in an effort to see how commercial law courses are taught in a variety of configurations. The survey is only two questions long and will require less than a minute of your time (maybe less than two minutes -- but I offer no warranties as to the time). Please click the link, identify your school and check all of the boxes that apply to your institution regarding the commercial law courses offered by your school. And for those curious as to the overall results, I will post results as they come in updating as appropriate. I will not post by school, but rather will likely group the results according to tiers or by overall group size.

Marc (MLR)

Fed Targets Gift Cards

The Federal Reserve is on a consumer protection roll. Last week, the Fed tackled overdraft fees on point-of-sale and ATM transactions (see Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules). Today, the Federal Reserve announced proposed rules concerning gift cards aimed at fees on the cards and expiration dates (see press release). The highlights are that providers cannot charge fees unless:

1. The card is inactive for one year;
2. No more than one fee is charged monthly; and
3. The provider gives notice of the fees to the consumer.

Moreover, cards cannot expire for at least five years after purchase or reloading of the card. Both store-specific and network based cards are covered by the rules.

- JSM

AALS Program and Print Symposium on the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts

The AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law invites you to attend our Annual Meeting program on The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts: A Phoenix Rising from the Ashes of Article 2B and UCITA? and solicits additional proposals for the companion symposium issue.

The Topic: On May 19, 2009, the ALI approved the Principles of the Law of Software Contracts, which undertake to weave the currently divergent threads of law governing software contracts into a coherent whole that will guide parties in drafting, performing, and enforcing software contracts, assist courts and other arbiters in resolving disputes involving software contracts, and, perhaps, inform future legislation addressing software contracts. Do the Principles clarify the law of software contracts? Will they successfully unify the law of software contracts? Are they consistent with current best practices in software contracting? Will they encourage desirable future developments in the law and practice of software contracts? These are among the questions our program speakers will address.

The Program: Our annual meeting program, scheduled for Saturday, January 9, 10:30 AM to 12:15 PM, in the Magnolia Room, Third Floor, Hilton New Orleans Riverside, will feature Principles Reporter Bob Hillman (Cornell) and Associate Reporter Maureen O’Rourke (Boston U.), who will offer their unique insights on the drafting process, key substantive provisions, and their legal and practical implications; Amy Boss (Drexel), who will add her insights about the failures of the UCC Article 2B project and UCITA and the prospects for the Principles’ success; Juliet Moringiello (Widener), who will discuss her and co-author Bill Reynolds's (Maryland) paper "What's Software Got to Do With It?," offering their perspectives on the Principles process, largely ignoring past efforts and debates, and addressing some of the assumptions underlying the Principles and how they address those assumptions; and Florencia Marotta-Wurgler (NYU), who will discuss her and co-author Yannis Bakos's (NYU Stern School of Business) paper "How Much Does Disclosure Matter?," which delves deeper into the value of disclosure -- an important assumption underlying the Principles and a subject the Principles tackle substantively -- and augments the conceptual discussion with empirical analysis.

The Symposium Issue: The Tulane Law Review will publish a print symposium issue including papers from most of our presenters, papers selected from among those who responded to our initial call for proposals as well as others from whom we solicited contributions, and some shorter responses and replies. We can accommodate a limited number of additional papers, responses, and replies in the symposium issue, which is scheduled to go to press in late summer 2010.

How to Submit a Paper or Proposal: If you would like to contribute to the print symposium, and want your proposal to receive full consideration, please e-mail an abstract, précis, or draft by Monday, December 14, 2009 to Professor Keith A. Rowley, Chair of the AALS Section on Commercial and Related Consumer Law. E-mail: keith.rowley@unlv.edu. We may consider submissions received after December 14 on a space-available basis. Executive Committee members and the Tulane Law Review's symposium editors will review all timely submissions and notify no later than Monday, January 11, 2010 those authors we would like to contribute to the print symposium.

Hooray for the New Overdraft Rules

Yes, its taken a long time. Yes, it has needed urging through proposed legislation in Congress. Yes, it has taken the coordinated efforts of several federal agencies. But, success at last. Yesterday, the Federal Reserve Bank announced final rules amending Regulation E of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (see press release). As we've complained here before, these overdraft charges amount to about $1.7 billion each year in fees to banks (See FDIC Study, How Your $4 Cup of Coffee). There were a number of touchy issues with the banks pushing back firmly on how the rules would come out. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve seems to have come down firmly on the side of consumers on most of the issues primarily raised by debit card use.

So, here are the highlights:

1. Banks must comply with the Final Rules as of July 1, 2010


2. Banks cannot charge an overdraft fee on ATM and point-of-sale debit card (POS) transactions without the customer affirmatively opting-in to overdraft protection


3. The rules apply to existing and new accounts


4. Banks must offer the same account terms to customers who do not choose overdraft protection for ATM and POS transactions

Three issues remain unresolved by the Final Rules: (i) the size of overdraft fees (often $35 per transaction with no daily limit on the number of transactions charged; (ii) the batch reordering of transactions done by banks to increase the amount of fees generated on transactions by customers who do opt-in; and (iii) debit holds that trigger overdraft fees on transactions such as gasoline, hotels and restaurants. These gaps aside, the progress made by the Federal Reserve on debit cards is substantial.

Remember, banks can still charge the fees on those who have not opted-in until July 2010. So, still use your debit cards with care. As for me, I will not be opting-in, but will await the sales pitch that banks will inevitably make.

- JSM

Phillip Keitel on Gift Cards

'Tis the season for gift cards! While this piece is from 2008, Phillip Keitel of the Philadelphia Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank has written The Laws, Regulations, Guidelines, and Industry Practices that Protect Consumers Who Use Gift Cards. Here's the abstract:

This paper discusses consumer protections available to gift-card users. Specifically, it examines the ways in which value loaded at the time of purchase is protected for future card use or returned to consumers when the card is not used or has expired. The consumer protection information included in this paper is derived from a number of sources, including several types of state statutes, Federal Trade Commission decisions, financial industry regulatory agency guidelines, and previous interviews with payments industry experts regarding practices concerning network-branded gift cards. This paper expands research begun by the Payment Cards Center in 2004 into prepaid cards generally and the protections available to consumers who use gift cards specifically.

Happy shopping!

- JSM

Update on H.R. 3126 Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009

The U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee passed H.R. 3126, a bill for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), Oct. 22 in a 39-29 vote. The bill does not have a date scheduled for a full House vote, and the Senate does not have a companion bill proposed at this time.

In case you've not been following this, the CFPA would have the authority to write new consumer protection rules in the arenas of lending and credit, to monitor banks and other financial institutions for compliance with these rules, and to penalize institutions for any infractions. The CFPA would also have the ability to ban products, marketing tactics, and other business practices that it deems “unfair, deceptive, or abusive.”

The Financial Services Committee added several amendments which altered the Obama Administration’s original outline of the agency. An amendment added Oct. 21 exempts the insurance agency from CFPA oversight and prevents the agency from interfering with state insurance regulators’ oversight of insurance companies and products. An amendment offered by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) adds five representatives from the fields of “consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representatives of depository institutions that primarily serve underserved communities, or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgages” to the CFPA Oversight Board. Another amendment phases out the Home Valuation Code of Conduct; the amendment would allow all originators, licensed or registered in accordance with the SAFE Mortgage Licensing Act, to order appraisals directly.

The bill is now over at the House Energy and Commerce Committee which appears to be amending the bill to replace the executive who was to run the agency with a five-member commission with staggered terms.

- RH (Reid Haataja, posted by JSM)

Harry Flechtner on the Scope of the CISG

Those those CISG fans, Professor Harry Flechtner, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, has a new piece Selected Issues Relating to the CISG's Scope of Application. The abstract is as follows:

This paper addresses two issues concerning the scope of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), both of which have arisen in recent decisions applying the Convention: 1) whether requirements imposed by U.S. domestic sales law on attempts to disclaim implied warranties apply to attempts to derogate from the seller‘s obligations under Arts. 35(2)(a) & (b) CISG; and 2) whether burden of proof questions that are not expressly addressed in the CISG are governed by the general principles of the CISG. The paper defends the use of the distinction between substantive and procedural law in defining the scope of the CISG with respect to burden of proof issues, and in determining the whether the Convention provides for the recovery of damages for attorneys’ fees incurred to litigate a claim under the CISG. The paper concludes by arguing that defining the limits of the Convention‘s scope is critical to its success, and to the success of future attempts to create uniform international commercial law.

Happy reading.

- JSM