Adriana Levandowski
Adriana Levandowski
Adriana is a second-year law student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law, graduating in December. Before law school, Adriana received a Bachelor’s Degree focused in International/Global Studies with a concentration in Peace and Conflict Studies from the University of San Francisco. She obtained minor degrees in African Studies, Legal Studies, and Peace and Justice Studies. During her undergraduate degree, Adriana spent a semester in London working on a landmark LIBOR rigging case at Bark & Co. solicitors. Adriana then studied in Paris, gaining proficiency in French. In 2017, Adriana completed a U.K. law degree (equivalent to an L.L.B.) at BPP University London.
Adriana is an active member of both the law school's and Greater Denver's legal community. She spends her time volunteering with a number of projects and initiatives, including the Tribal Wills Project, Our Courts Program, and as a peer mentor and student ambassador. In addition to her work with The Race to the Bottom, Adriana is on the board of the Business Law Society, co-founder of Law Students Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, and is a member of the Colorado IP Inn of Court.
She is interested in business litigation and consumer protection work. Outside of law school, Adriana works at SoulCycle on the weekends and enjoys karaoke, trivia, and traveling.
In January 2025, the US Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a tax case that provides the Court with an opportunity to rule on the narrow, yet contested, question of due process regarding mootness of Tax Court challenges. Commissioner v. Zuch, No. 24-416, 2025 WL 65915, at *1 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2025). Zuch reached the Supreme Court after the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) petitioned to reverse a Third Circuit opinion regarding I.R.C. § 6330 due process claims. The ruling disagreed with the IRS’s argument that underlying tax liability becomes moot upon fulfilled payment of unpaid taxes by any means. Zuch v. Commissioner, 97 F.4th 81, 94 (3d Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. Commissioner v. Zuch, No. 24-416, 2025 WL 65915 (U.S. Jan. 10, 2025). This Third Circuit opinion conflicts with the D.C. and Fourth Circuits, which ruled that § 6330 claims are moot once the IRS abandons its levy and concedes that no tax liability remains. (Tristan Navera & John Woolley, Bloomberg); McLane v. Commissioner, 24 F.4th 316 (4th Cir. 2022); Willson v. Commissioner, 805 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (affirming Tax Court's dismissal of claims as moot after the IRS abated taxpayer’s underlying tax liability upon which a levy could be placed). If the Supreme Court returns a ruling for Zuch, US taxpayers would gain confidence in disputing IRS levies under § 6330 and face less obstacles to obtaining jurisdiction in US Tax Court. This article recounts the details and events leading to Commissioner v. Zuch and analyses how a Supreme Court verdict could change how due process is weighed in US Tax Court cases.
At the Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tennessee, on July 27, 2024, then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump pledged to make the United States the “‘crypto capital of the planet’” and laid out his vision for a crypto-friendly administration. (MacKenzie Sigalos, CNBC). At first glance, this statement may seem like just another campaign promise; however, on January 23, 2025, President Trump signed the “Strengthening American Leadership In Digital Financial Technology” Executive Order. (The White House). The Executive Order outlines the Trump Administration’s plans to follow through on its promise to encourage digital asset growth in the United States and revokes both President Biden's “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets” Executive Order and the Department of the Treasury's "Framework for International Engagement on Digital Assets." Id. With news of a crypto-friendly presidential administration and Bitcoin prices soaring, 2025 could prove to be a prosperous year for Bitcoin and decentralized finance. This paper argues that while some may still be skeptical about cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin's recent success will preview digital assets becoming more common and popular throughout the United States and the rest of the world.
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA” or “the Act”) is back in force after the Supreme Court granted the Justice Department’s (“DOJ”) application to stay a nationwide enjoinment of the act. (John Woolley & Tristan Navera, Bloomberg). The stay comes during the case Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland where a Federal District Court in Texas granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against the Act. Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland, No. 4:24-CV-478, 2024 WL 4953814 (E.D. Tex., Dec. 3, 2024). This article examines the background and consequences of the CTA as well as political factors that may influence the Act’s future.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) has recently intensified its scrutiny of artificial intelligence (“AI”) fraud by targeting misleading claims about AI in the investment space. (SEC Press Release). This enforcement effort, focused on preventing a deceptive marketing tactic called “AI washing,” aligns with a broader regulatory trend focused on ensuring transparency in AI disclosures. Id. The SEC has pursued enforcement actions against public companies and investment advisers that exaggerate their AI capabilities or falsely claim to integrate AI into decision-making processes. (Kevin Friedmann, et. al., Norton Rose Fulbright). As AI technology becomes more prevalent in financial and corporate sectors, companies must navigate these regulations carefully to maintain compliance and investor confidence. This post examines the SEC’s enforcement actions, anticipates the agency’s future focus, and explores the implications for advisors and businesses that use AI.
On January 20, 2025, China sent shockwaves through the tech industry when it launched its very own artificial intelligence model—DeepSeek. (Ben Cohen, The Wall Street Journal). DeepSeek is an open-source AI model that its backers claim is more cost-effective than its rivals, including the U.S.’s OpenAI. (Forbes). According to reports, DeepSeek’s founder Liang Wenfreng developed the AI model with just $1.4 million in capital. (Ty Roush, Forbes). Meanwhile, DeepSeek’s largest rival, OpenAI, cost more than $100 million to develop, according to its CEO Sam Altman. (Katharina Buchholz, Forbes). The disparity between these figures and the drop in U.S. tech stocks has sparked fears among leading tech companies in the U.S. that Chinese outfits will soon overtake them. (Brian Cheung et al., NBC News). However, this article explores why the development of DeepSeek may very well be beneficial to America’s dominance in the AI realm, should U.S. tech companies be up for the challenge.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or the “Commission”) announced a final rule targeting buying and selling fake reviews and testimonials on August 14, 2024. (Mitchell J. Katz, FTC.gov). This final rule is the result of a two-year process initiated in 2022 with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking followed by a notice of proposed rulemaking in June 2023, and finally an informal hearing on the proposed rulemaking in February of 2024. Id. The final rule was then announced on August 14, 2024, where the Commission outlined activities the rule will regulate, primarily the buying, selling, or fabricating of fake online reviews and testimonials. Id. Fake online reviews can pop up anytime something is sold or rated online, ranging from travel review sites to e-commerce businesses to paid influencer testimonials, and make up an estimated 16% to 40% of all online reviews. (Heidi Mitchell, Wall Street Journal). According to FTC Chair Lina Khan, the final rule is necessary because fake reviews “not only waste people’s time and money, but also pollute the marketplace and divert business away from honest competitors.” (Mitchell J. Katz, FTC.gov). Confusingly, however, in the FTC’s federal register notice of the final rule (a detailed document which accompanies all FTC rulemaking), the Commission stated that the buying and selling of fake reviews was already illegal under Section 5 of the FTC Act. (15 U.S.C. § 45; FTC, Final Register Notice). This begs the question, why was this new rulemaking necessary? This post examines why the Commission deems this rule necessary, what activities the final rule prohibits, and how it can be used to help consumers.
Consumers and states are bringing lawsuits against social media conglomerate Meta, seeking billions in damages and substantial change to the company’s allegedly addictive technologies. (Naomi Nix, The Washington Post). Meta runs Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and other popular technology platforms. (Meta.com). Despite the company’s commitment to “keeping people safe and making a positive impact,” many users and state governments believe Meta leverages addictive methods to encourage teen engagement on Instagram and Facebook. (Meta.com; Jonathan Stempel et al., Reuters). States and individuals are pushing for Meta to take accountability for its addictive algorithms and make changes to protect the mental health of its minor Instagram and Facebook users, which would likely affect company policies and Meta’s stakeholders. (Meta.com; Jonathan Stempel et al., Reuters). This post considers the social media policies giving rise to widespread claims against Meta, as well as the potential effects of such claims.
Strikes have flooded the news headlines for the past years, as thirty-three significant strikes occurred in 2023, with an estimated 462,000 workers engaged in those strikes. (Chris Isidore, CNN). Boeing was unable to escape the strike fever in 2024, as workers demanded a 40% raise in wages and the reinstatement of pension benefits. (Niraj Chokshi, New York Times). Due to the massive impact the strike had on the company, Boeing and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (the “Union”) announced a negotiated proposal (“Proposed Deal”) subject to voting on October 23rd, 2024. (IAM District 751). Ultimately, the Proposed Deal was rejected by a 64% vote. (IAM District 751). This article discusses the key elements of the Proposed Deal and how it sheds light on the greater narrative of Boeing’s fragile state of dwindling finances, reputation, and relationship with its workers.
On March 6, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) passed a final rule requiring applicants to include climate-related disclosures within their registration statements and annual reports. (Deloitte). This rule includes initial public offerings (“IPOs”) and will go into effect for annual reports ending on December 31, 2025. Id. ESG reporting is a system that provides key information to stakeholders about business operations which relate to the “environmental, social and governance (ESG) areas of the business.” (Tom Krantz & Alexandra Jonker, IBM). This post discusses what ESG reporting is and why it is relevant, how companies have approached reporting on ESG matters, and the positives and negatives of ESG reporting.
Companies should brace for turbulence as the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Service”) zeroes in on dishonest corporate jet tax breaks. The IRS disclosed internal training materials under the Freedom of Information Act that outline key data points auditors will focus on during their new corporate jet auditing campaign, which was announced early in 2024. (Erin Schilling, Bloomberg). Funded by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”), the corporate jet auditing campaign is part of the IRS’s Strategic Operating Plan which seeks to further the Service’s objective of expanding tax compliance enforcement to ultrawealthy individuals, corporations, and complex partnerships. (Erin Schilling, Bloomberg; Erin Slowey, Bloomberg; Daniel Werfel, Department of the Treasury; IRS). This article dives into why the IRS is implementing more audits on the use of corporate jets, how deductions could affect a company’s bottom line, and how this new focus will impact companies and the US moving forward.
With the 2020 Presidential Election just around the corner, voting paraphernalia, media campaigns, and the like are hard to avoid. Now, Corporate America is jumping on the voting bandwagon. Some companies, like designer fashion brand Tory Burch, are donating proceeds from limited-edition “VOTE” branded merchandise to get-out-the-vote programs. (Kate Kelly and Sapna Maheshwari, New York Times). Restaurant chain Shake Shack is giving away free French fries to all customers that vote early.
It is impossible to ignore the protests and social justice initiatives surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement spanning the country, recently surpassing 100 consecutive days of protests. (Patience Womack & Tosca Ruotolo, The Daily Barometer). In light of national demands for racial justice, the California state legislature introduced Assembly Bill 979 (“Diversity Bill”) aimed at increasing corporate diversity. In short, the Diversity Bill requires corporations that have nine or more Board of Directors to include at least three minority members by the end of 2022. (Saijel Kishan, Bloomberg). Additionally, California’s Secretary of State will be required to publish annual board diversity reports evaluating corporate progress and compliance. Id. In 2018, California enacted a similar gender equity law, S.B. 826, 2017-18 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ca. 2018), requiring publicly held companies with a board of four or less to have at least one female director. (Women on Boards, California Secretary of State). Though the 2018 bill is widely criticized, its results are undeniable, increasing representation and corporate accountability. (See generally California Secretary of State, March 2020 Women on Boards Report).
As the COVID-19 pandemic reached the U.S. in early March, millions of American workers were furloughed or laid off, leaving many without a reliable income. (Kathryn Vasel, CNN Business). Unemployment in the U.S. rose to 17.8 million in June 2020, an almost 8% increase since February. (The Employment Situation, U.S. Dept. of Labor). Economists estimate unemployment could reach 32.1% in the second quarter of 2020, surpassing the Great Depression’s 24.9% peak. (Chris Morris, Fortune). Despite thousands of American workers struggling to pay their bills, Chief Executive Officers (“CEOs”) remain largely untouched. (Anders Melin, Bloomberg Law).
Following years of negotiations and various roadblocks, the Sprint and T-Mobile merger cleared its last big hurdle in federal court last month. (Laurel Wamsley, NPR) The “mega-merger” was announced in April 2018 but faced immediate backlash. The attorney generals of New York, California, the District of Columbia, and ten other states protested the potential merger as an anti-competitive practice. (Laurel Wamsley, NPR) The states argued the reduction of carriers in the telecom market creates less market competition, limits fair and free choice for consumers, and harms workers in this industry. (Id.)
In the booming era of blockchain, Facebook’s Libra Association markets itself as an “independent, not-for-profit, membership organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland” aiming to increase access to the global financial system and services. (Libra.org). In a world where 1.7 billion adults don’t have adequate access to the global financial system, Libra’s cryptocurrency claims it has the answer. (Id.) Through distributed network governance, open internet access, and cryptography security, cryptocurrencies aim to increase accessibility to financial services. (Id.) Yet, the volatility and value fluctuation of existing cryptocurrencies has hindered their adoption by the mainstream market. (Id.)
Phone carrier giants Sprint and T-Mobile announced an unprecedented merger in the spring of 2018. The merger would create a $146 billion powerhouse company under the T-Mobile name. (Taylor Soper, GeekWire). As of now, T-Mobile and Sprint are the third and fourth-largest carriers in the U.S., just behind AT&T and Verizon. Id. However, the Department of Justice (DOJ) initially wasn’t sold and filed suit to block the merger. (U.S. D.O.J. Compl. 3. July 26, 2019). A deal of this size raises fair market and antitrust concerns for both the D.O.J. and Federal Communications Commission (F.C.C.) and is dependent on the regulators’ approval. (Taylor Soper, GeekWire).