The DOJ will not challenge Whirlpool’s (much-blogged-about) proposed acquisition of Maytag (HT: WSJ Law Blog). This Reuters blurb suggests that antitrust experts believe the decision “is a key test of the Justice Department’s new antitrust chief and could provide a glimpse of how tough he will be in reviewing mergers” (HT: Antitrust Review).

Read the full piece here.

David Zaring, guest blogging at Concurring Opinions, has some thoughts on the sunsetting of the ABA’s consent decree this June. David asked for my thoughts on what this will mean for the market for legal education (also, I am quite flattered that Zaring describes me as a “prominent and businessey professor blogger,” but, I am a sucker for puffery) in exchange for the right to cross-post here at TOTM. My short answer to his question: probably not much.

Read the full piece here.

I’m really starting to worry about the lawyers for former Qwest CEO, Joseph Nacchio. (I first expressed concern here.) Mr. Nacchio has been charged with 42 counts of criminal insider trading. The charges are based on allegations that Mr. Nacchio learned, after Qwest had made some rosy public statements, that business wasn’t going as well as predicted, and he then sold $101 million worth of stock on the basis of that non-public information.

Read the full piece here.

In a recent speech at the Brookings Institution, Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) bashed what he called “a laissez-faire energy policy that relies on market evolution.” Under such a policy, he says, “life in America is going to be much more difficult in the coming decades.” He insists that “[w]hat is needed is an urgent national campaign led by a succession of presidents and Congresses who will ensure that American ingenuity and resources are fully committed to this problem.”

Read the full piece here.

It drives me nuts when the government attempts to justify rules mandating particular business practices on grounds that they reduce costs for the businesses being regulated. My favorite recent example of this is OSHA’s ultimately repealed (thank goodness!) ergonomics standard. The agency sought to justify the extraordinarily intrusive rule on grounds that it would save employers $9.1 billion per year (after compliance costs) in reduced sickdays and workers’ compensation costs. Of course, the agency never bothered to explain why, in light of these cost-savings, the government needed to force compliance.

Read the full piece here.

Economists, free-marketeers, and law and econ types are often accused of invoking this phrase as a knee-jerk reaction to regulations of all shapes and sizes. The position is sometimes attacked as overly simplistic, based upon an unjustified faith in markets, or just plain lazy. On this score, Don Boudreaux (Cafe Hayek, GMU) has a must-read post on what it means to favor the market solutions to government solutions to various public policy problems.

Read the full piece here.

The WSJ this weekend has a long piece on the issue of stock option backdating, “The Perfect Payday.” Here’s the tagline…

Read the full piece here.

Sports Law Blog’s Michael McCann updates our recent discussion (me: here and here; and Professor McCann here) of the Harlem Ambassadors’ complaint to the FTC regarding the Globetrotters’ use of exclusivity windows in sports arena leases. In response to our debate, the Harlem Ambassadors’ founder and president Dale Moss emailed us some very interesting comments.

Read the full piece here.

Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks and co-owner of Landmark Theatres, has been blogging about equity-based CEO compensation and the problems it purportedly creates. Cuban’s theory is that paying CEOs in company stock does not tend to align their interests with those of shareholders; instead, it leads CEOs to pursue excessively risky business ventures.

Read the full piece here.