Saturday, December 2, 2017
To draft end of semester exams. So while I frantically try to develop fact-patterns that are simple and coherent and yet simultaneously engage a semester’s worth of material, I offer three links that interested me recently.
First, Vice Chancellor Laster’s ruling in Wilkinson v. Schulman (pdf). In this opinion, VC Laster denied a books and records request on the grounds that the purposes of inspection belonged to Wilkinson’s counsel, and not Wilkinson himself. Wilkinson had complaints about the company, but the purposes of inspection raised in the demand letter were different, and developed by the attorneys without Wilkinson’s involvement. As Laster concluded, “Wilkinson simply lent his name to a lawyer-driven effort by entrepreneurial plaintiffs’ counsel.” This strikes me as the kind of ruling that could have broader implications – we’ll see if future cases pick up these threads.
Second, Bloomberg recently reported on an organization called “Protect Our Pensions,” which purports to be a grassroots effort to fight against fossil fuel divestment, but is in fact industry-backed astroturf. The reason I find this fascinating is that the standard argument against divestment is that it conveys no new information to the market and therefore will not affect prices. But the fact that the industry bothered to organize this effort at all tells us that the industry, at least, believes these efforts are having some kind of adverse effect.
Third, Buzzfeed posted an exposé of sexual assaults at Massage Envy franchises across the country. (Warning for graphic descriptions). Aside from all of the other issues raised, what struck me was how the franchise model – which allows Massage Envy to use its branding but disclaim responsibility – appears to have played a role in the cover-ups and lack of response to complaints. I’m not sure I’d want to use scenarios this fraught in business class, but it would certainly make a change from the standard McDonald’s cases featured in most textbooks to illustrate vicarious and apparent agency theories of liability.