Saturday, November 22, 2014
CALL FOR PAPERS
Fourth European Research Conference on Microfinance
1-3 June 2015
Geneva School of Economics and Management, University of Geneva
Access to suitable and affordable finance is a precondition for meeting basic human needs in incomes and employment, health, education, work, housing, energy, water and transport. Microfinance – and more broadly, financial inclusion – will continue to be on the research and policy agenda. 2015 will be a special occasion to question received notions about the link between access to finance and welfare. In 2015 the Millennium Development Goals will make place for the Sustainable Development Goals. A broad debate and exchange on micro, macro and policy topics in financial inclusion will advance our knowledge and ultimately improve institutional performance and policy. This applies in particular to issues of financial market organization, but also patterns, diversity and trade-offs in institutional performance, scope for fiscal instruments, impact of technology on efficiency and outreach etc.
The European Research Conference on Microfinance is a unique platform of exchange for academics involved in microfinance research. The three former conferences organized by the Centre for European Research in Microfinance (CERMI) at the Université Libre de Bruxelles in 2009, by the University of Groningen in the Netherlands in 2011 and the University of Agder in Norway in 2013 brought together several hundred researchers, as well as practitioners interested in applied research. The upcoming Fourth Conference is organized by the University of Geneva, in cooperation with the European Microfinance Platform (www.e-mfp.eu) and in association with the University of Zurich and the Graduate Institute of Geneva.
To provide cutting-edge insights into current research work on microfinance and financial inclusion and to enrich the conference agenda we invite papers on the following topics:
- Client-related issues: consumer behavior, client protection, financial education, household-enterprises and entrepreneurship
- Financial products: credit, insurance, deposits, domestic and cross-border payments
- Non-financial services
- Microfinance adjacencies: Millennium Development Goals
- Institutional issues: management, governance, legal form, transformation, growth, mission drift
- Market: monopolies, competition, alliances and cooperation, mergers and acquisitions, crowding-in and crowding-out issues
- Funding: subsidies (smart and other), investments (public and private) in microfinance institutions
- Policy and regulatory issues
- International governance
Papers will be selected for presentation at the conference by the Scientific Committee, based on criteria of academic quality.
Members of the Scientific Committee include, amongst others: Arvind Ashta (Burgundy School of Business), Bernd Balkenhol (U Geneva), Georges Gloukoviezoff (U Bordeaux and U College Dublin), Isabelle Guerin (IRD, Cessma), Begona Gutierrez-Nieto (U Zaragoza), Malcom Harper (Cranfield School of Management), Valentina Hartarska (U Auburn, USA), Marek Hudon and Ariane Szafarz (CERMI and Solvay School of Business Brussels), Susan Johnson (U Bath), Annette Krauss (U Zürich), Marc Labie (CERMI and University of Mons), Roy Mersland (U Agder), Christoph Pausch (European Microfinance Platform Luxembourg), Trond Randoy (U Agder), Daniel Rozas (European Microfinance Platform Luxembourg), Jean Michel Servet (Graduate Institute Geneva) and Adalbert Winkler (Frankfurt School of Finance and Management), Hans Dieter Seibel (U of Cologne).
Authors are invited to submit an abstract of their paper (not exceeding 2 pages) to email@example.com by December 20, 2014.
The full paper needs to be sent in by March 31, 2015.
Monday, November 10, 2014
Received Saturday (edited slightly for publication here):
Please consider submitting your work to the Track "Crowdfunding: a democratic way for financing innovative projects" @ the RnD Management Conference 2015.
The RnD Management Conference 2015 will be held in June 23-26 at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa.
You can find more information on the Conference Track and on the submission process at the following link: http://www.rnd2015.sssup.it/.
I warmly apologize for cross-posting.
Cristina Rossi Lamastra, PhD
Associate Professor at Politecnico di Milano School of Management
Phone: 0039 0223993972
Fax: 0039 0323992710
Friday, October 24, 2014
I used to joke that my alma mater Columbia University’s core curriculum, which required students to study the history of art, music, literature, and philosophy (among other things) was designed solely to make sure that graduates could distinguish a Manet from a Monet and not embarrass the university at cocktail parties for wealthy donors. I have since tortured my son by dragging him through museums and ruins all over the world pointing spouting what I remember about chiaroscuro and Doric columns. He’s now a freshman at San Francisco Art Institute, and I’m sure that my now-fond memories of class helped to spark a love of art in him. I must confess though that as a college freshman I was less fond of Contemporary Civilization class, (“CC”) which took us through Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, Hume, Hegel, and all of the usual suspects. At the time I thought it was boring and too high level for a student who planned to work in the gritty city counseling abused children and rape survivors.
Fast forward twenty years or so, and my job as a Compliance and Ethics Officer for a Fortune 500 company immersed me in many of the principles we discussed in CC, although we never spoke in the lofty terms that our teaching assistant used when we looked at bribery, money- laundering, conflicts of interest, terrorism threats, data protection, SEC regulations, discrimination, and other issues that keep ethics officers awake at night. We did speak of values versus rules based ethics and how to motivate people to "do the right thing."
Now that I am in academia I have chosen to research on the issues I dealt with in private life. Although I am brand new to the field of normative business ethics, I was pleased to have my paper accepted for a November workshop at Wharton's Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research. Each session has two presenters who listen to and respond to feedback from attendees, who have read their papers in advance. Dr. Wayne Buck, who teaches business ethics at Eastern Connecticut State University, presented two weeks ago. He entitled his paper “Naming Names,” and using a case study on the BP Oil spill argued that the role of business ethics is not merely to promulgate norms around conduct, but also to judge individual businesspeople on moral grounds. Professor John Hasnas of Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business also presented his working paper “Why Don't Corporations Have the Right to Vote?” He argued that if we accept a theory of corporate moral agency, then that commits us to extending them the right to vote. (For the record, my understanding of his paper is that he doesn’t believe corporations should have the right.) Attendees from Johns Hopkins, the University of Connecticut, Pace and of course Wharton brought me right back to my days at Columbia with references to Rawls and Kant. My comments were probably less theoretical and more related to practical application, but that’s still my bent as a junior scholar.
In a few weeks, I present on my theory of the social contract as it relates to business and human rights. In brief, I argue that multinational corporations enter into social contracts with the states in which they operate (in large part to avoid regulation) and with stakeholders around them (the "social license to operate", as Professor John Ruggie describes it). Typically these contracts consist of the corporate social responsibility reports, voluntary codes of conduct, industry initiatives, and other public statements that dictate how they choose to act in society, such as the UN Global Compact. Many nations have voluntary and mandatory disclosure regimes, which have the side benefit of providing consumers and investors with the kinds of information that will help them determine whether the firm has “breached” the social contract by not living up to its promise. The majority of these proposals and disclosure regimes (such as Dodd-Frank conflict minerals) rest on the premise that armed with certain information, consumers and investors (other than socially responsible investors) will pressure corporations to change their behavior by either rewarding “ethical” behavior or by punishing firms who act unethically via a boycott or divestment.
I contend in my article that: (1) corporations generally respond to incentives and penalties, which can cause them to act “morally;” (2) states refuse to enter into a binding UN treaty on business and human rights and often do not uniformly enforce the laws, much less the social contracts; (3) consumers over-report their desire to buy goods and services from “ethical” companies; and (4) disclosure for the sake of transparency, without more, will not lead to meaningful change in the human rights arena. Instead, I prefer to focus on the kinds of questions that the board members, consumers, and investors who purport to care about these things should ask. I try to move past the fuzzy concept of corporate social responsibility to a stronger corporate accountability framework, at least where firms have the ability to directly or indirectly impact human rights.
As a compliance officer, I did not use terms like “deontological” and “teleological” principles, but some heavy hitters such as Norway's Government Pension Fund, with over five billion Kronos under management, do. The 2003 report that helped establish the Fund’s recommendations on ethical guidelines state in part:
One group of ethical theories asserts that we should primarily be concerned with the consequences of the choices we make. These theories are in other words forward-looking, focusing on the consequences of an action. The choice that is ethically correct influences the world in the best possible way, i.e. has the most favourable consequences. Every choice generates an infinite number of consequences and the decisive question is of course which of the consequences we should focus on. Again, a number of answers are possible. Some would assert that we should focus on individual welfare, and that the action that has the most favourable consequences for individual welfare is the best one. Others would claim that access to resources or the opportunities or rights of the individual are most important. However, common to all these answers is the view that the desire to influence the world in a favourable direction should govern our choices.
Another group of ethical theories focuses on avoiding breaching obligations by avoiding doing evil and fulfilling obligations by doing good. Whether the results are good or evil, and whether the cost of doing good is high, are in principle of no significance. This is often known as deontological ethics.
In relation to the Petroleum Fund, these two approaches will primarily influence choice in that deontological ethics will dictate that certain investments must be avoided under any circumstances, while teleological ethics will lead to the avoidance of investments that have less favourable consequences and the promotion of investments that have more favourable consequences.
Recently, NGOs have pressured firms to speak on out human rights abuses at mega-events and have published their responses. The US government has made a number of efforts, some unsuccessful, to push companies toward more proactive human rights initiatives. These issues are here to stay. As I formulate my recommendations, I am looking at the pension fund, some work by ethicists researching marketing principles, writings by political and business philosophers, and of course, my old friends Locke, Rousseau, Rawls and Kant for inspiration. If you have ideas of articles or authors I should consult, feel free to comment below or to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. And if you will be in Philadelphia on November 14th, register for the session at Wharton and give me your feedback in person.
October 24, 2014 in Books, Business School, Call for Papers, Conferences, Corporate Governance, Corporate Personality, Corporations, CSR, Current Affairs, Ethics, Financial Markets, Marcia Narine, Securities Regulation | Permalink | Comments (0)
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Below is a call for papers that I received by e-mail earlier today.
RESEARCH COLLOQUIUM: CALL FOR PAPERS
Law and Ethics of Big Data
April 17 & 18, 2015
Indiana University- Bloomington, IN.
Abstract Submission Deadline: January 17, 2015
A research colloquium, “Law and Ethics of Big Data,” co-hosted by Professor Angie Raymond of Indiana University and Janine Hiller of Virginia Tech, is sponsored by the Center for Business Intelligence and Analytics in the Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech; the Kelley School of Business at Indiana University; and the Poynter Center for the Study of Ethics and American Institutions at Indiana University.
Up to six invitations for research presentation slots will be extended based on this call for papers. In order to receive consideration, researchers are invited to submit an abstract by January 17, 2015.
Monday, October 20, 2014
The following announcement comes to us from Alicia Plerhoples (Georgetown). The 14th annual transactional clinic conference will be held at UMKC School of Law in Kansas City, Missouri and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation is serving as a host partner. Proposals are due by December 15, 2014 and more information about the conference is available after the break.
14TH ANNUAL TRANSACTIONAL CLINICAL CONFERENCE
CALL FOR PROPOSALS, PAPERS, & PANELISTS
Teaching and Writing Methods of the Transactional Clinician
This year’s conference theme is Teaching and Writing Methods of the Transactional Clinician. The conference will have two tracks: (1) a “Nuts & Bolts” Teacher Workshop and (2) a “Pen & Paper” Scholarship Workshop. The Planning Committee seeks proposals for (1) presentations, (2) papers, and (3) panelists as outlined below.
Friday, September 26, 2014
The below is from an e-mail I received earlier this week about an impact investment legal symposium on October 2, 2014 from 8:30 a.m. to noon (eastern):
Bingham, in conjunction with the International Transactions Clinic of the University of Michigan Law School, Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs (ANDE) Legal Working Group and Impact Investing Legal Working Group, is proud to present a legal symposium on Building a Legal Community of Practice to Add Still More Value to Impact Investments.
The symposium will be held at Bingham McCutchen LLP's New York offices at 339 Park Avenue or you can attend virtually by registering here.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Call for Papers - 6th International Conference on Institutional and Technological Environment for Microfinance (ITEM 6)
Call for Papers
ITEM 6 – Tunis, Tunisia
Microfinance: Coaching, Counting, and Crowding
The Banque Populaire Chair in Microfinance of the Burgundy School of Business (France) and l’École supérieure du commerce de Tunis jointly organize the 6th edition of the annual conference “Institutional and Technological Environment of Microfinance” (ITEM) in March 2015 (17, 18, 19) in Tunis, Tunisia.
The 6th edition brings together–but not limited to-three major issues, which are shaping the sector of microfinance: Coaching, Counting, and Crowding.
Coaching in microfinance provides training in business and soft skills (attributes enhancing an individual's interactions and self-performance) that the poor micro-entrepreneurs rarely have. Increasingly, microfinance academics and practitioners consider building the human capital of micro-entrepreneurs a critical ingredient of moving out of poverty.
Counting and tracking the microfinance clients and prospects with the information technologies not only lessen information asymmetry, but also lower the transaction cost of financial intermediation. Corollary: information technologies can open ways for offering financial services to the poor as a normal way of doing and extending normal business, and accelerate their social integration.
Crowding, based on the Web 2.0 technologies, enables direct interactions between millions of lending and borrowing people. Through crowdfunding, micro and small entrepreneurs can raise the crucial funds required for their projects by a large number of individuals via social networks on the Internet. It provides an unprecedented opportunity for alleviating poverty in both developed and developing countries.
In addition to the above topics, other microfinance related topics such as impact measures, social governance, innovation, and sustainable development are welcomed.
The ITEM conference provides a forum for both researchers and practitioners to discuss and exchange on financial inclusion. The conference in March 2015 seeks quantitative, qualitative and experience-based papers from industry and academia. Case studies and PhD research-in-progress are also welcomed. It encourages reflections on the potential and use of technology in microfinance in developed and developing countries.
Papers presented at the conference will also be considered for publication in partnering journals.
Proposals: All contribution types require a proposal in the first instance, including a short abstract between 300 and 500 words, up to five keywords, the full names (first name and surname, not initials), email addresses of all authors, and a postal address and telephone number for at least one contact author.
Submission period for the proposals: Up to November 10, 2014.
Acceptance of proposals: By November 30, 2014. As abstract selection notifications will be sent out to relevant authors, please indicate clearly if the contact author is not the lead author.
Full paper: Only required after acceptance of abstract. Papers should not to be more than 5000 words including abstract, keywords and references.
Submission period for the full papers: Up to February 16, 2015.
- Djamchid ASSADI: Djamchid.Assadi@escdijon.eu
- Maaouia BEN NASR: Maouia.Ben-Nasr@escdijon.eu
Web site: http://item6.weebly.com
Fees: Author registration and payment must be completed by February 27, 2015.
There are special discounts available for early-bird registration, students and group bookings (3 registrations). Details will be available on the ITEM 6 website.
[Ed. Note: I participated in ITEM 5 last year. The conference was very worthwhile and attracted a diverse group of scholars and others (in industry) from a number of countries (not the usual suspects, in many cases). We took a field trip to a local microfinance lender on the first day of the conference (as part of the event), which was incredibly enlightening. I am looking at funding opportunities to enable me to attend the 2015 conference as well.]
Friday, August 15, 2014
Over at PrawfsBlawg, on a post comparing the SEALS and AALS conferences, an anonymous commenter questioned the value of academic conferences.
In this economic environment, many schools are tightening their belts. A number of schools have made cuts to funds for travel and professional development.
Below, I list some of the areas in which conferences can provide benefits.
Teaching. At most conferences I attend, I attend at least one panel on pedagogy. In addition, many of the panels provide new material for classes. Also, fellow professors may be more willing to share teaching materials, which can be invaluable, if they have met you in person at a conference.
Service. Conferences are often the hub for discipline-related service. Many, if not most, of my external service opportunities have come from other professors I met at conferences.
Research. You can receive excellent comments on your papers at conferences and are much more likely to get other professors to review your work if you have met them in person. Also, a number of the people who have cited my work are people I met at conferences.
Professional Development. Much of our time as professors is spent with students, who are usually not experts in our subject areas. Even most of our colleagues are not experts in our specific research areas. Conferences give professors a chance to test themselves against other experts in their areas, which can lead to significant professional development.
Inspiration. I tend to return from conferences inspired and refreshed. Seeing the successes of my colleagues at other schools encourages me to be more efficient and improve in all areas.
Community. Academic community often grows from conferences. Blogs, social media, listservs, e-mail, and phone calls can sustain the community, but I think it is relatively difficult to be truly plugged into the broader academic community without at least a few in-person meetings with other professors.
Compensation. Frankly, I count funding for conferences as part of my compensation. A school without funding for conferences would likely have to pay more in salary if it did not provide funding for conferences. Also, payment for conferences usually amounts to a relatively small portion of total faculty compensation.
Rankings. Many school rankings depend, at least in part, on peer reputation. In the U.S. News law school rankings, for example, peer reputation is actually the single most heavily weighted factor. I don’t think schools should chase rankings just for the sake of the rankings, but improving rankings can impact things that matter (recruiting intelligent students, attracting recruiters to campus, and making (generous) alums happy, etc.) I’m not sure how much schools spend on those glossy brochures they send to other schools, chasing peer reputation, but I am much more likely to think well of another school if I hear a good presentation from one of their faculty members than if I see an impressive looking pamphlet in my mailbox.
Of course, there are probably ways to cut spending on academic conferences without losing the above benefits and I am open to those ideas.
Related to this post, I am interested in how other schools divvy up travel funds (and any details about your school's approach to travel funds that you can share). At Belmont, we apply to our assigned associate dean to get funding for any conference we wish to attend. Except in the most rare circumstances, you will not get funding if you are not presenting a paper. I am not sure what the limits for travel funding are at Belmont, but they have been generous in granting my requests so far. I know some schools grant professors a set amount of travel funds each year; this seems like a good way to encourage careful spending and allow better planning by professors, but it does not address the variation in professor productivity (unless the amount granted is pegged to recent publications).
Monday, August 11, 2014
Ah, yes . . . . The public/private divide . . . . My co-blogger Ann Lipton fairly begged me to write about this topic today, given that she had to miss the discussion session on the subject (entitled "Does The Public/Private Divide In Federal Securities Regulation Make Sense?") convened by me and Michael Guttentag at last week's Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) annual conference. Arm-twisting aside, however, this is a topic of current interest (and actively engaged scholarship) for me.
The discussion session allowed a bunch of our corporate and securities law colleagues to explore historical, present, and projected future distinctions between public and private offerings and public and private companies/firms. The discussion ranged widely, as did the short papers submitted by the participants. Some topics of conversation were oriented in part toward corporate governance concerns--comments from Lisa Fairfax on linkages to shareholder empowerment and from Jill Fisch on executive compensation in the post-Dodd-Frank public environment come to mind in this regard. Other discussion topics engaged securities regulation more centrally, including by, e.g., questioning the coherence of the rationale underlying the Section 12(g) and 15(d) reporting thresholds (with interesting commentary from Amanda Rose and Usha Rodrigues); offering historical observations about the difference between public offerings and private placements and how that history does, should, and may play out in offering markets (Dale Oesterle and Wulf Kaal); expressing concern about accredited investor status in the wake of the new Rule 506(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Jonathan Glater); and analyzing the CROWDFUND Act at the public/private offering and company divides (me).
Different notions of "publicness" and "privateness" were offered up, dissected, and used in the discussion. Many pointed to the formative work of Hillary Sale (The New 'Public' Corporation, Public Governance, and J.P. Morgan: An Anatomy of Corporate Publicness) and Don Langevoort and Bob Thompson (Redrawing the Public-Private Boundaries in Entrepreneurial Capital-Raising and 'Publicness' in Contemporary Securities Regulation after the JOBS Act) as important touchstones. Both sets of papers address issues involving the publicness of firms. The Langevoort and Thompson Redrawing article also addresses public and private offerings of securities on a detailed level.
Yet, not everyone anchored their ideas to these existing works. One participant (Ben Means) provocatively suggested, for example, analyzing public disclosure rules using the bumpy-versus-smooth taxonomy for legal rules described in Adam Kolber's recent California Law Review article. I was not familiar with this piece. I now plan to read it.
Many discussants denied the continued existence or salience of a public/private divide in securities regulation, believing instead that there is a sliding scale or continuum between public and private. Although this argument has more traction after the JOBS Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, evidence of an indistinct line both in finance and entity law predates those legislative initiatives. Some of us were uncomfortable in declaring the death of the public/private divide--or in letting go of the analytical distinction between publicness and privateness because of the role that it serves in scholarship and teaching. The public/private divide has been a heuristic in securities regulation that people find hard to abandon . . . .
My paper, which is founded on the works of Professors Langevoort, Sale, and Thompson, is forthcoming in the University of Cincinnati Law Review. Although the draft is not "ready for Prime Time" yet, I am happy to share it with anyone who may be interested in it. Other papers submitted for the discussion group may or may not be precursors to works in process. But you can contact any discussion group participant (or ask me to contact one or more participants on your behalf) if you want to explore their ideas further.
Although I am not yet fully ready to step back into the classroom to teach next week, I am better prepared for the experience (and for the research and writing I am doing) thanks to the SEALS conference. And now, to finish that syllabus . . . .
Sunday, August 10, 2014
The following paragraph is an excerpt from Micro-Symposium on Competing Theories of Corporate Governance, 62 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 66, which can be found online (here) and is also available via Westlaw.
On Friday, April 11, and Saturday, April 12, 2014, the UCLA School of Law Lowell Milken Institute for Business Law and Policy sponsored a conference on competing theories of corporate governance…. This conference provided a venue for distinguished legal scholars to define the competing models, critique them, and explore their implications for various important legal doctrines. In addition to an oral presentation, each conference participant was invited to contribute a very brief essay of up to 750 words (inclusive of footnotes) on their topic to this micro-symposium being published by the UCLA Law Review’s online journal, Discourse. These essays provide a concise but powerful overview of the current state of corporate governance thinking….
The included essays:
- Stephen M. Bainbridge, An Abridged Case For Director Primacy
- George S. Georgiev, Shareholder vs. Investor Primacy in Federal Corporate Governance
- David Millon, Team Production Theory: A Critical Appreciation
- Usha Rodrigues, David and Director Primacy
- Stefan J. Padfield , Citizens United, Concession Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
- Christopher M. Bruner, Corporate Governance Theory and Review of Board Decisions
- Robert T. Miller, The Board Veto and Efficient Takeovers
- Lisa M. Fairfax, Toward a Theory of Shareholder Leverage
- Iman Anabtawi, Shadow Directors
- Michael D. Guttentag, Shareholder Primacy and the Misguided Call for Mandatory Political Spending Disclosure by Public Companies
- James J. Park, Averages or Anecdotes? Assessing Recent Evidence on Hedge Fund Activism
Shameless self-promotion excerpt:
In extremely truncated form, my argument proceeds as follows. While both director primacy and shareholder primacy differ in terms of who should control corporate decisionmaking, both identify shareholder wealth maximization as the positive and normative goal of corporate governance. In addition, while team production theory tempts advocates of CSR, in the end it also falls short of supporting mandatory CSR. As for the theories of corporate personality, both aggregate theory and real entity theory view the corporate entity as standing in the shoes of natural persons to some meaningful degree (typically the shareholders in the case of aggregate theory and the board of directors in the case of real entity theory), thereby providing corporations a basis for resisting government regulation. Only concession theory, which views the corporation as fundamentally a creature of the state created to serve public ends, can support mandatory CSR as a normative matter. Thus, the advocates of mandatory CSR should use concession theory, with its emphasis on the public roots of corporations, to provide the compelling narrative necessary to move our corporate law beyond its exclusive focus on shareholder wealth maximization.
Stefan J. Padfield , Citizens United, Concession Theory and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), 62 UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 84, 86 (2014).
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Below is a call for abstracts from Professor Amy Sepinwall (Wharton).
Call for Abstracts for the Normative Business Ethics Workshop Series of the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research:
Over the 2014-2015 academic year, the Carol and Lawrence Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, will be convening a regular works-in-progress series for scholars working in normative business ethics (NBE).
The series is part of an effort to foster, and increase the prominence of, normative business ethics in the academy and the public sphere. This particular initiative has two key objectives: First, it endeavors to provide a regular forum for scholars working on business ethics from a normative perspective. The community of such scholars is relatively small, and dispersed across numerous institutions, and there are few opportunities for these individuals to convene and share work. This series is an effort to connect these scholars, and enrich their shared intellectual life. Second, the series aims to be especially valuable to junior faculty, by providing them with feedback from, and opportunities to interact with, more established members of the normative business ethics community. To that end, we hope to have one junior author and one senior author at each session.
The workshop will meet roughly once a month over the academic year, for a total of 6 sessions per year. Anyone with an interest in normative business ethics is invited to attend the sessions. Faculty interested in having their paper discussed at the workshop should submit an abstract and list, in order of preference, the date(s) they could present from those listed below. (Further information about submission can be found under the “Call for Abstracts” below.) Two draft papers will be selected for each session. Complete draft papers will be circulated at least one week in advance of each session and participants will be expected to have read them carefully, and to arrive at the workshop prepared to offer constructive feedback.
The sessions will be structured so as to maximize the opportunity for paper improvement through the comments of a community of scholars committed to normative business ethics. To that end, authors will not present at the session for which their paper has been assigned. Instead, those gathered will go around the table and each participant will offer a few points of feedback on the paper.
An author whose paper is selected for presentation in a given semester will bear an obligation to attend the other two sessions that semester or to send feedback via email to the authors whose papers are presented at any session that she is unable to attend. In this way, each author will be assured of a good number of responses to her paper.
The Zicklin Center will provide the room and refreshments for each session. Attendees will be asked to pay for their own travel expenses. Some travel funding is available for paper authors for the session at which their paper will be discussed.
For Fall 2014, the workshop will be held on the following dates:
Friday, October 10, 2014, 2:00-4:30 PM.
Friday, November 14, 2014, 2:00-4:30 PM.
Friday, December 5, 2014, 2:00-4:30 PM.
Call for Abstracts
We invite individuals interested in workshopping a paper in normative business ethics to submit a paper abstract. The abstract should be a maximum of 500 words, and the accompanying email should indicate preferred dates of presentation from those listed above. Please send these to Lauretta Tomasco, email@example.com, by September 1, 2014. Individuals will be notified about whether their paper has been selected for presentation by September 15, 2014.
Please address all questions to Amy Sepinwall, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Monday, August 4, 2014
Many of us are in the process of (perhaps frantically) wrapping up our summer scholarly activity and re-focusing our primary professional attention on teaching. As always, I am using the annual conference sponsored by the Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) to help me make this transition. Yesterday, I attended a discussion session led by law school associate deans and faculty who focus on faculty development--scholarship and teaching. It was an incredibly interesting and wide-ranging discussion.
Part of the conversation centered around summer research stipends, a topic that has been in the national news a bit over the past few years. Various participants in the discussion session addressed, each from his or her individual institution's vantage point, the reasons for/purposes of summer research stipends (which not every school represented at the session currently has) and how summer stipends actually work or should/could optimally work. I was surprised by the variations in approaches and ideas from school to school. While the individual models are too numerous to capture here, I summarize below the fold some of the top-level points made and thoughts shared during the discussion.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
While I will miss my friends at the wonderful SEALS conference, I am excited to be attending and presenting at the Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) conference in Seattle next week.
For the ALSB conference, the organizers have set up a Guidebook App. I am just now exploring all the features, but it looks like an impressive and useful tool.
The App includes:
- The conference program.
- The conference schedule.
- Your schedule. You create your own schedule and can have reminders send to your phone.
- Full text of all the conference papers, organized by subject, author, and title.
- An attendee list, where attendees can share their contact information.
- In-app social networking.
- Information about exhibitors.
- A survey.
- Information about Seattle (restaurants, attractions, etc.)
There is a free version of Guidebook, but it looks like this ALSB Conference App has features of the rather expensive paid plans. The free version is limited to 200 downloads and doesn't appear to allow inclusion of presentation materials. Given the textbook publisher listed at the bottom of the App, I am guessing that the textbook publisher paid at least part of the cost, though that is pure speculation on my part.
While pricey for the paid plans, this might be something for AALS, SEALS, and other large conference organizers to consider for future years. The free version may be useful for smaller conferences.
Monday, June 23, 2014
This past week, I joined a group of our business law prof colleagues at the National Business Law Scholars Conference out at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Headlined by a keynote presentation on "the audience" for business law scholarship from Frank Partnoy and an author-meets-reader session on Michael Dorff's new book, Indispensable and Other Myths: The True Story of CEO Pay, the conference featured a staggeringly interesting array of panels on everything from standard corporate governance to financial regulation. Kudos to the planning committee.
Steve Bainbridge presented Must Salmon Love Meinhard? Agape and Partnership Fiduciary Duties in an opening concurrent panel. If you haven't read it yet, I recommend it. Admittedly (as I told Steve), I have an especial interest in the Meinhard case and in the expressive function of decisional law. But most of us in the business law professor group teach the case in one course or another, and his paper is relevant to many in that context.
Monday, June 16, 2014
I have been working on a draft article for the University of Cincinnati Law Review based on a presentation that I gave this spring at the annual Corporate Law Symposium. This year's topic was "Crowdfunding Regulations and Their Implications." My draft article addresses the public-private divide in the context of the Capital Raising Online While Deterring Fraud and Unethical Non-Disclosure Act--more commonly known as the CROWDFUND Act. I am using two pieces coauthored by Don Langevoort and Bob Thompson (here and here), as well as three works written by Hillary Sale (here, here, and here) to engage my analysis.
I also will be participating in a discussion group at the Southeastern Association of Law Schools annual conference in August on the publicness theme. That session is entitled "Does The Public/Private Divide In Federal Securities Regulation Make Sense?" and is scheduled for 3:00 pm on Augut 6th, for those attending the conference. Michael Guttentag was good enough to recruit the group for this discussion.
All this work on publicness has my head spinning! There are a number of unique conceptions of pubicness, some overlapping or otherwise interconnected, with different conceptions being useful in different circumstances. I am attracted to a number of observations in both the Langevoort/Thompson and Sale bodies of work, but there's clearly a lot more to think about from the standpoint of both scholarship and teaching.
So, today I ask: What does publicness mean to you? Does there continue to be salient meaning in the distinction between piublic and private (offerings, companies, etc.)? If so, what should publicness mean in these contexts? I am curious to see what others think.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Monday, June 9, 2014
Today, we finished two days of amazingly rich discourse on business law issues at the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) Workshop on Blurring Boundaries in Financial and Corporate Law in Washington, DC. (Full disclosure: I chaired the planning committee for this AALS midyear meeting.) All of the proceedings have been phenomenally interesting. I have learned so many things and been forced to think about so much . . . . For those of you who couldn't be there, I tried to faithfully pick up a bunch of salient points from the talks and discussions on Twitter using #AALSBB2014. Moreover, some of the meeting was recorded. I will try to remember to let you know when, to whom, and how those recordings are being made available. (Feel free to remind me if I forget . . . .)
One idea shared at the workshop that I am particularly intrigued by is the use of a new standard in federal securities regulation, suggested by Tom Lin in his talk as part of this morning's plenary panel on "Complexity". He argues for an "algorithmic investor" standard (working off/refining the concept of the reasonable investor) in light of the growth of algorithmic trading. It's predictable that I would be interested in this idea, given that I write about materiality in securities regulation (especially insider trading law, in articles posted here and here), in which the reasonable investor standard is central. (In fact, Tom was kind enough to mention my work on the resonable investor standard in his talk.)
Tom is not the first to argue for a securities regulation standard that better serves specific investor populations. Memorable in this regard, at least for me, is Maggie Sachs's paper arguing for a standard focused on the "least sophisticated investor". But many other fine works contending with materiality or the concept of the reasonable investor in securities regulation also question (among other things) the clarity and efficacy of the reasonable investor standard in specific contexts.
Friday, June 6, 2014
For those interested in the Academy of Legal Studies in Business ("ALSB") conference in Seattle (August 4-7), the deadline to upload papers is June 29, and early-bird conference registration ends on July 1.
More information is available at the ALSB website. The ALSB conference is the national conference for legal studies professors in business schools, though I believe that interested practitioners and law professors would also be welcome.
Hope to see some of our readers in Seattle.
Thursday, June 5, 2014
Last week I posted about proxy advisory firm ISS and its recommendations regarding Wal-Mart and Target.
This week the US Chamber of Commerce weighed in on the two main proxy advisory firms, what the organization sees as their potential conflict of interests and the lack of transparency, and the SEC’s imminent release of guidance on the firms. It’s worth a read and has some great links.
Next week I will be blogging from Salvador, Brazil where I will be enjoying the World Cup. I will post a brief recap of some of the business-related Law and Society sessions I attended in Minneapolis last weekend. With all of the controversy that invariably surrounds a large sporting event in a country that scores high on the corruption perception index, I may even be inspired to write a law review article on the FCPA.
Thursday, May 29, 2014
Greetings from the Law and Society conference. Tomorrow I serve as the discussant on a panel entitled Theorizing the Corporation at Legal Intersections with Professors Charlotte Garden of Seattle, Sarah Haan of Idaho and Elizabeth Pollman of Loyola, Los Angeles. We will debate/discuss corporate personhood and how Citizens United has affected elections in ways that people might not expect. I'll explain more about that and other panel discussions in next week's blog.
If you're at the conference or Minneapolis, swing by the University of St. Thomas, Room MSL 458 at 12:45 on Friday.