Sunday, September 18, 2016
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
The following is being posted on behalf of Jonathan Adler, the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
In recent years, the Supreme Court appears to have taken a greater interest in "business" issues, leading court watchers to question whether this is a change in the Court's orientation, or if it is the natural outcome of the appellate process. Is the Court "pro-business"? If so, in what ways do the Court's decisions support business interests and what does that mean for the law and the American public? On September 23, the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University will host a conference, "Business in the Roberts Court" to explore these questions. Speakers include Catherine Sharkey (NYU), Todd Henderson (Chicago), James Copland (Manhattan Inst), Brianne Gorod (CAC), Suzette Malveaux (Catholic), Cassandra Robertson (CWRU), Mitch Pickerill (NIU), Andrew Grossman (Baker & Hoestetler), Jonathan Adler (CWRU), Karen Harned (NFIB) and Ohio State Solicitor Eric Murphy. The conference is open to the public and 4.5 hours of CLE credit are available. It will also be webcast live. Details are here.
As you know, assessment is of critical importance these days, and I am confident that in a few years most, if not all, law school casebooks will come with effective, out-of-the-box, turnkey assessments. If you believe your book is already there, or even close, please send your pitch to me at email@example.com. Assuming no unforeseen problems, I plan to post these pitches here, as I am sure they will be of interest to many of our readers.
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Sunday, September 4, 2016
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Sunday, August 21, 2016
Sunday, August 14, 2016
"allowing a corporation to serve in Congress..consistent w/..broad interpretation of..Qualifications Clauses" 16 J. Bus.&Sec. L. 85 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) August 14, 2016
Sunday, August 7, 2016
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
Sunday, July 17, 2016
"the standard-model event study used in most court proceedings can lead to biased inferences" 68 Stan. L. Rev. 1207 (2016) #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) July 13, 2016
Sunday, July 10, 2016
Sunday, July 3, 2016
The University of Akron Law Review recently published its Symposium on Law and SocioEconomics. You can find a full list of the contributions here (Volume 49, Issue 2). As one of the organizers of the symposium, I had the honor of writing a conclusion to the issue, titled Socio-Economics: Challenging Mainstream Economic Models and Policies. I provide the abstract below, and you can read the entire piece here.
At a time when many people are questioning the ability of our current system to provide economic justice, the Socio-Economic perspective is particularly relevant to finding new solutions and ways forward. In this relatively short conclusion to the Akron Law Review’s publication, Law and Socio-Economics: A Symposium, I have separated the Symposium articles into three groups for review: (1) those that can be read as challenging mainstream economic models, (2) those that can be read as challenging mainstream policy conclusions, and (3) those that provide a good example of both. My reviews essentially take the form of providing a short excerpt from the relevant article that will give the reader a sense of what the piece is about and hopefully encourage those who have not yet done so to read the entire article.
Sunday, June 26, 2016
"popular engagement w/ the nature of corporate personality..should not be dismissed as irrelevant to tax law" 84 FordhamL.Rev. 2583 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) June 20, 2016
"tag jurisdiction...would be in accord with...affording corporations rights equivalent to those of natural persons" 46 N.M.L.Rev. 1 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) June 20, 2016
Delaware Schnell doctrine: "compliance w/..corporate statute is..minimum..not..sole, requirement for legality" 5Am.U.Bus.L.Rev. 159 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) June 20, 2016
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Sunday, June 5, 2016
insider trading: "empirical analysis of European states' adoption of the equality of access theory" 7 Wm. & Mary Bus. L. Rev. 275 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) May 30, 2016
"These two justices [Kagan & Sotomayor] are the most interrupted in oral arguments; is a gender dynamic at play?" https://t.co/6329LBxjt9— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) June 3, 2016
Sunday, May 29, 2016
"Despite..Court's characterization of corp[s] as 'associations of citizens'..not all corp[s] are associational" 69 Vand.L.Rev. 639 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) May 24, 2016
Proposal: "duty to become informed & deliberate on the impact of corporate decisions on multiple stakeholders" 2015B.Y.U.L.Rev.1309 #corpgov— Stefan Padfield (@ProfPadfield) May 24, 2016
Sunday, May 22, 2016