The Corporate Governance of the Biggest Corporations You’ve Never Heard Of
Aaron M. Schutt
PDF
When Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, it directed the creation of twelve regional and over two hundred village corporations chartered under Alaska state law. ANCSA subjected these corporations to Alaska’s corporate governance framework, including the laws and regulations governing corporate elections. This Article examines the statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to ANCSA corporations, including the various requirements around ANCSA corporation annual shareholder meetings. It also analyzes relevant state and federal case law interpreting and applying these requirements. Finally, the Article explores the rights and responsibilities of corporate directors and officers, as well as the role of shareholders in ANCSA corporate governance.
SB 86/HB 99: Navigating Alaska’s Digital Renaissance – A Strategic Approach to Virtual Currency Regulation
Nihit Desai & Alice Cao
PDF
Alaska is navigating a transformative phase in its regulatory approach to virtual currency transmission, driven by the rapid growth of the fintech industry and the unique economic and geographic challenges faced by its residents. As the number of virtual currency transactions in Alaska has surged dramatically over recent years, the State’s existing money transmission framework—rooted in laws designed before the rise of cryptocurrencies and internet-based financial services—has proven insufficient to address this evolving landscape.
In light of the wide adoption of virtual currency by consumers, Alaska has implemented targeted amendments to its Administrative Code and proposed the Alaska Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act (the “AUMTMA”) through Senate Bill 86 and House Bill 99 (collectively, “SB 86/HB 99”). These regulatory developments aim to provide clarity on virtual currency activities, streamline licensing processes, enhance consumer protections, and align the regulation of money transmission in Alaska with the Model Money Transmission Modernization Act (the “Model Law”).
Alaska’s adoption of SB 86/HB 99 would enable a more seamless approach to regulation than the status quo of conflicting laws, as well as help preserve Alaska’s limited resources with respect to licensing and supervisory efforts. Currently, inconsistencies in and across state money transmission regulations function as a barrier to market entry. In effect, slow market entry deters product innovation, which hinders the ability for Alaskans to keep up with an evolving economy and the digitally connected world.
Despite market advancements, the legislative process for broader reforms, such as the adoption of SB 86/HB 99, remains uncertain. This Article provides an in-depth examination of Alaska’s regulatory history, the reasons for change, and the ongoing efforts to harmonize state regulations with national standards while addressing the distinct needs of Alaskan consumers and businesses.
Furthermore, this Article explores the implications of virtual currency bankruptcies, such as Voyager Digital and Celsius Network, which underscored the vulnerabilities of unregulated or under-regulated markets and led to frozen assets for Alaskan investors. It also evaluates the role of fintech innovations like mobile payment systems in bridging gaps for rural communities with limited access to traditional banking services. This Article highlights Alaska’s efforts to strike a balance between fostering innovation in the digital economy and safeguarding consumers and investors from potential risks.
As the State moves forward, the success of these initiatives will depend on effective legislative support, robust stakeholder engagement, and the ability to adapt to the dynamic and fast-paced nature of the fintech ecosystem. Alaska’s experience offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of integrating virtual currencies into traditional regulatory frameworks and positions the State as a potential leader in navigating the digital financial revolution.
Making Alaskans Whole: How Regulators Can Restore Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Lands and Recover Billions for the Public
Catherine H. Rocchi, Philip A. Wight & Michael Loughran
PDF
This Article examines the dismantlement, removal, and restoration requirements associated with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). These decommissioning obligations, rooted in the right-of-way lease agreements between state and federal agencies and the pipeline owners, require the lessees to remove pipeline infrastructure and restore Alaskan lands at the end of the pipeline’s useful life. Yet the regulatory structures governing TAPS decommissioning are deficient in several respects. Regulators have failed to safeguard decommissioning collections using a designated fund or a comprehensive liability regime. An opaque and overly permissive approach to transfers of ownership between the TAPS carriers has substituted private agreements for concrete assurance that a new owner will complete decommissioning. Finally, it is unclear when or how regulators will define the scope of restoration or compel the TAPS carriers to refund excess decommissioning collections. Despite these ongoing regulatory failures, opportunities remain to enforce state and federal lease obligations. Policymakers have the power and the mandate to expand public governance, protect Alaskan workers, and transfer billions from out-of-state companies to public coffers.
Rediscovering Alaska’s Right to Housing
Helen Malley
PDF
In the wake of Grants Pass v. Johnson, state constitutions provide an alternative avenue to protect the rights of people experiencing homelessness. While some states contemplate amending their constitutions to encompass a right to housing, this Article argues that such a right already exists in the Alaska Constitution. Article VII, Sections 4 and 5 explicitly direct the legislature to provide for the public health and welfare, and Article I, Section 22 recognizes all Alaskans’ fundamental right to privacy. When read together, these provisions provide for a dual right to housing, encompassing both an affirmative right to adequate and affordable housing, and a corollary negative right to self-shelter. To understand how such a right could be recognized today, Part II of this Article provides an overview of the Alaska Supreme Court’s methods of constitutional interpretation and rights expansion. Part III then applies these methods to existing provisions of the Alaska Constitution to demonstrate how they encompass a right to housing. Section III.A discusses the history of the Alaska Constitution’s Health and Welfare Clauses to illustrate that the text and heritage of the document support a right to adequate and affordable housing. Section III.B then turns to the Privacy Clause to argue that the broader values enshrined in the Alaska Constitution similarly encompass a negative right to self-shelter.
Additional Files
Rediscovering Alaska’s Right to Housing – Appendix.pdf
Feed It to the Ocean: The Federal Approach to Decommissioning in Alaska Native Climate Adaptation Projects
Sophia Tidler
PDF
This Note calls on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to issue guidance clarifying that concurrent decommissioning is an in-scope “connected action” under the National Environmental Policy Act for relocation, managed retreat, and protect-in-place projects aimed at replacing infrastructure in environmentally threatened Alaska Native communities. In 2018, the Denali Commission completed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Alaska’s first community-driven village relocation of the millennium, facilitating construction of essential infrastructure at Mertarvik, the relocation site for the village of Newtok. However, the Denali Commission chose to exclude a full-scale decommissioning plan for Newtok’s existing infrastructure. Today, more than seventy-three Alaska Native villages face unprecedented severe threats from flooding, erosion, permafrost degradation, and the combined effects of each. The Denali Commission’s segmented approach to decommissioning exposed critical gaps in interagency coordination, tribal consultation, and funding priorities. It set a dangerous precedent for similar at-risk communities facing toxic pollution of water and subsistence resources. As tribal organizations and federal agencies work to protect these communities from environmental threats and historic inequities, CEQ guidance on decommissioning is more pressing now than ever.
The Future of Alaska’s Wetlands in a Post-Sackett World
Johanna Crisman
PDF
In 2023, the United States Supreme Court decided Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, which effectively restricted the United States Army Corps of Engineers’ (“USACE”) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate development of wetlands. The State of Alaska submitted an amicus brief to the Court on behalf of the petitioners, the Sackett family. In the wake of the decision, Governor Dunleavy praised the decision by the Court, emphasizing that the decision provided the state more autonomy over its own wetlands. Still, there is concern by environmentalists that the State does not have the resources to protect the wetlands to the extent necessary without federal funding and support. Alaska encompasses more than half of America’s wetlands, so the challenge for the State’s environmental programs is substantial. This Note will explore the ramifications of Sackett and what it means for Alaska. Then, it will examine what Alaska must do to continue to protect its wetlands and survey its progress following the Sackett decision. Further, it will examine how federal regulations under the EPA will fare in a post-Chevron world. Finally, this Note will offer recommendations for best practices by the State to ensure Alaska protects its vital wetlands, as well as insight into how best to prepare for the inevitability of further litigation over these areas.
No Eyes in the Skies: State of Alaska v. McKelvey’s Impact on Aerial Surveillance in Alaska
Lauren Beizer & Johanna Crisman
PDF
Alaska contains a dynamic and complex aviation culture. As one of the most visually captivating places on earth, Alaska also hosts enthralling scenery that could be deemed a photographer’s dream landscape, creating an interesting desire for aerial capture of certain scenes. The Alaska Supreme Court considered whether Alaska’s unique aviation culture, in conjunction with aerial police surveillance, infringes on residents’ right to privacy in State of Alaska v. McKelvey. While the United States Constitution contains no express right to privacy, the Alaskan Constitution explicitly ensures that the right to privacy of Alaskan residents will not be infringed upon. The United States Supreme Court has yet to address the issue of warrantless searches involving enhanced aerial surveillance, but the decision rendered by Alaska’s Supreme Court in State of Alaska v. McKelvey should be the standing precedent followed by all states. Alaska reached the correct decision in protecting citizens’ privacy, and other states should also consider placing this high of a premium on respective privacy rights.
