Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
TOTM Christine blogs about the Whirlpool-Maytag merger and its antitrust problems. Law Blog has the story, as well. Both mention the American Antitrust Institute which opposes . . .
Christine blogs about the Whirlpool-Maytag merger and its antitrust problems. Law Blog has the story, as well. Both mention the American Antitrust Institute which opposes (vehemently) the merger.
Read the full piece here.
TOTM Prof. B. writes with pronounced skepticism of and hostility to Hamas’ recent Palestinian parliamentary victory here. He sees this as a “decisive victory by a . . .
Prof. B. writes with pronounced skepticism of and hostility to Hamas’ recent Palestinian parliamentary victory here. He sees this as a “decisive victory by a terrorist organization hostile to both the US and Israel,” and asks why anyone thinks this would be a good thing. Well, he’s right as a banal descriptive matter (Hamas is, in fact, “a terrorist organization hostile to both the US and Israel”), but here’s a couple of reasons to be optimistic.
TOTM Apologies for my relative absence of late: my day job, and all. I know my 3 loyal readers out there (hi Mom!) were wondering about . . .
Apologies for my relative absence of late: my day job, and all. I know my 3 loyal readers out there (hi Mom!) were wondering about me. Soon, I’ll post more of substance. Meantime, here’s a little chestnut for your bedtime reading pleasure, culled from an article in the Economist.
TOTM The government subpoenas Google’s records, and also Yahoo!’s and Microsoft’s. MSFT and YHOO cave: Their stocks are down a little over and a little under . . .
The government subpoenas Google’s records, and also Yahoo!’s and Microsoft’s. MSFT and YHOO cave: Their stocks are down a little over and a little under 2%, respectively. Google resists. Its stock drops almost 9%. And yet a headline for an article by MSNBC’s chief economics correspondent–with the relevant stock prices immediately alongside–notes, “Google stand could be good for business.” Maybe he’s talking about Microsoft’s business?
TOTM Via the WSJblog, I see that Google and the government are tangling again over the government’s effort to obtain search records (this time relating to . . .
Via the WSJblog, I see that Google and the government are tangling again over the government’s effort to obtain search records (this time relating to porn-viewing-by-children enforcement efforts) (I guess that should read anti-porn-viewing-by-children enforcement efforts). It reminds me of a post of Dan’s on Concurring Opinions from a while back that I wanted to comment on, but, well, I didn’t have a blog then. I do now.
TOTM First, Joel Trachtman of Tufts’ (great and soon-to-be better) Fletcher School has started up a new international trade blog, called International Economic Law and Policy. . . .
First, Joel Trachtman of Tufts’ (great and soon-to-be better) Fletcher School has started up a new international trade blog, called International Economic Law and Policy. If you know anything about international trade law and/or economics, you know Joel Trachtman and thus you know that this will be a must-read. He has been joined at the blog by Columbia Law’s Petros Mavroidis.
TOTM We all know that our securities regulatory regime is predominantly a disclosure regime, meaning the regulators, for the most part, don’t impose substantive regulations on . . .
We all know that our securities regulatory regime is predominantly a disclosure regime, meaning the regulators, for the most part, don’t impose substantive regulations on securities issuers, but require only accurate, timely disclosure of certain information. And as against a more intrusive, substantive regime, I think this is preferable, even in its current, fairly intrusive form. But too often disclosure is presumed by commentators (and regulators) to be fairly costless — meaning that, even if it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do, it imposes no great cost, and if it succeeds it does so quite cheaply. This is what Larry means when he refers to regulations as “chicken soup.” I think this presumption is often under-supported.
TOTM I’m no expert on the topic (I anxiously await Randy Barnett’s comments), but does anyone else think the opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon issued today . . .
I’m no expert on the topic (I anxiously await Randy Barnett’s comments), but does anyone else think the opinion in Gonzales v. Oregon issued today (limiting the application of the Controlled Substances Act and upholding Oregon’s assisted suicide law) could have been a masterful dissent in Gonzales v. Raich (reading the Controlled Substances Act to preclude the legal use of medical marijuana). I’m getting my information from SCOTUSblog (as good as the Court itself, and edited, too!), so keep that in mind, but just read these sentences from SCOTUSblog describing the case:
Scholarship In this short essay, we take on some of the common claims surrounding the law and economics of the backdating of options. Most of these claims are rooted in the basic argument that backdating options amounts to concealment of compensation.
In this short essay, we take on some of the common claims surrounding the law and economics of the backdating of options. Most of these claims are rooted in the basic argument that backdating options amounts to concealment of compensation. While we agree that backdating may have amounted to a technical rule violation in some cases, there is actually no concealment and, in fact, backdated options are fully disclosed when granted, and their value incorporated into stock price. We also challenge a few other myths surrounding the practice of backdating options.
