By Pamela Swanson

After firing its CEO in the summer of 2014, Market Basket Inc. (“Market Basket”) found itself in a rare situation that exposed the relatively unknown, but potentially disastrous consequences of focusing solely on the short-term increase of shareholder value. In the wake of employees and customers effectively bringing a $3.7 billion corporation’s operations to a standstill, there is an opportunity to question what boards of directors should consider when making decisions that are in the best interest for the company. The concern for and interest in the “Main Street” understandings may become more relevant to a corporation as it contemplates profit-making strategies. Thus, if the key to corporate success may no longer exclusively be increasing shareholder value, then what is the best approach?

The reactions of many non-shareholder constituents following the contentious decision of Market Basket’s board of directors provide an opportunity to examine the necessary elements of corporate profit maximization and the presence of narrative in corporate law. The current landscape of corporate law, corporate governance, and the focus on shareholder value can be analyzed using the events surrounding Market Basket as an illustration of what may happen more regularly in the future if corporations do not adjust their priorities.

By Cory Lamz

Is bitcoin a type of virtual currency or a type of property? Either definition of bitcoin also carries other issues—including tax and regulation issues. The most critical issue related to the treatment of bitcoin is the criminal issue. How may bitcoin users be charged criminally? And since no bitcoin-specific legislation currently exists, under what laws may bitcoin users be charged?

By Georgi J. Vogel Rosen

In this article, I trace the development of Title VII religious accommodations and argue that the Tenth Circuit’s interpretation undermines the very purpose of the religious accommodation requirement.  The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. provides employers with a roadmap for discriminating against applicants from identifiably religious minority backgrounds without significantly risking liability.  At a time when certain religious minorities—specifically, Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs—already are disproportionately targeted because of bias, the requirement that employees or applicants explicitly notify employers of the need for religious accommodations increases their vulnerability.

By Greg Sager

In Massachusetts, rabbis have the authority to perform civil same-sex marriages, but can they refuse to do so? By identifying the same-sex marriage stances of the three largest American Jewish denominations – the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Movements – and by examining the current state of the law, this article will show that Massachusetts offers rabbis no legal protection and will explore the implications for the Movements, rabbis, and same-sex couples involved.

by Lena Cavallo

Matt Finer, a scientist at the Center for International Environmental Law in the United States, expressed his view on the situation surrounding Yasuní National Forest in Ecuador: “Now there is really no viable alternative to stop the wave of drilling slated for the most biodiverse region of the world.” It is true the number of ways to save Yasuní may be shrinking, but they have not yet disappeared.

by Hillary Knight

Section I of this paper briefly describes constitutional privacy jurisprudence and why the government gains power and authority as it restricts the private sphere, particularly with regard to reproductive rights.  Section II describes the exclusionary and discriminatory mechanisms employed to regulate the sale and purchase of PBOS, which is one of the ways that the government exercises its parent-like control over the decisions and freedoms of young women.  The final section argues that privacy jurisprudence and exclusionary mechanisms are simply ways in which the state creates and perpetuates its role as guardian and parent over its citizens.  Like the ability to ground rebellious teenagers or to set their curfews, the limitations set by the state are not to be challenged or questioned, but followed with the understanding that they are executed with our best interests in mind.  This, I suggest, is quite dangerous and it is why Judge Korman’s reversal of Sebelius was deeply threatening, not only to the HHS, but also to the entire executive branch.