Candidates must complete the online application which requires creating an account, uploading a resume or CV, and providing basic demographic information. In addition, applicants should submit a cover letter, a current CV, a published or unpublished academic article, a brief research agenda, and an indication of teaching interests (if not listed on the CV) to the chair of
Transparent Election Initiative
After the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), there were a flurry of articles pointing out its flaws as a matter of corporate theory (and those are only a very limited sample).
The problem is, the Supreme Court accepted a kind of simplistic view of the corporation as an association of citizen-shareholders, imbued with free speech rights by the transitive properties of the First Amendment. But corporations are not spontaneously-formed groups of private citizens; corporations themselves are creatures of law, and law in the first instance sets the ground rules for their structure and powers, including who has authority to speak, the purposes for which they may speak (i.e., wealth maximization), and the procedures for deciding what speech will be made.
In other words, the First Amendment can rationally be said to confer rights on natural persons, who exist outside of law; they are not constituted by law. Corporations, however, must be created by law before they exist as entities for the First Amendment to act upon, and it’s not clear how much that law – the law that creates them – has to be informed by constitutional principles.
For example, there
Transitions . . . .
Out with the old; in with the new.
It’s almost time for a new academic year to start. Like spring, it can be a time of renewal. That is certainly true for me this year.
With my new position as director of our business law program at Tennessee Winston Law, I got a new office. My office move has provided me with many opportunities for reflection. They have been bittersweet.
The pictures above are of the office I inhabited on and off for over 15 years, taken just after I finished moving my last things out. Most of my colleagues thought I would never leave this place. Truthfully, I didn’t ever really got a chance to properly move in originally. (Due to some poor planning and last-minute shenanigans, my assistant was forced to move my books and boxes into the office while I was at the Association of American Law Schools annual meeting one year.) The mess that my office became just rolled on from there . . . .
Some of what I found in the move has been quite amusing. I marveled at all the hard copies of bar reference letters, tenure letters, etc. that I had in
The Third Circuit Says Markets are Efficient but Not Too Efficient
…in a nonprecedential opinion so don’t get too excited.
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association v. Johnson & Johnson represents the latest iteration of courts trying to figure out what the heck to do about fraud on the market class certification in the wake of the Supreme Court’s desperately confused Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc. v. Ark. Teacher Ret. Sys., 594 U.S. 113 (2021).
Plaintiffs alleged that J&J concealed asbestos in its talc products, resulting in multiple stock price drops as the truth dribbled out. At class certification, J&J claimed it had rebutted the presumption of reliance by demonstrating that each allegedly corrective disclosure revealed no new information the market, and therefore could not have been responsible for the dissipation of artificial inflation.
I pause here to note that this is, I guess, the framework mandated by Goldman, but – as I have frequently screamed – it is both illogical and inconsistent with Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co., 563 U.S. 804 (2011) (Halliburton I). Specifically, even if J&J proves beyond a reasonable doubt that its fraudulent statements were never publicly corrected, that does not in any way shed light upon the question
Junior Faculty Business & Financial Law Workshop – Call for Papers
Institute for Law & Economics
University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School
FOURTH ANNUAL
JUNIOR FACULTY BUSINESS & FINANCIAL LAW WORKSHOP
CALL FOR PAPERS
The Institute for Law & Economics (ILE) at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School is pleased to announce its Fourth Annual Junior Faculty Business & Financial Law Workshop. The Workshop will be held in person on January 23, 2026 at or near Penn Carey Law.
The Workshop supports and recognizes the work of pre-tenured scholars in tenure-track positions in the business and financial fields, including corporations, securities, finance, accounting, banking, bankruptcy, tax, and general business law, while promoting interactions with such scholars, selected tenured faculty, and practitioners. By providing a forum for the exchange of creative ideas in these areas, ILE also aims to encourage new and innovative scholarship in the business and financial arena.
Approximately 6 to 8 papers will be chosen from those submitted for presentation at the Workshop. One or more senior scholars and practitioners will comment on each paper, followed by a general discussion of each paper among all participants. The Workshop audience will include invited pre-tenured scholars, faculty from Penn Carey Law, The Wharton School, and other institutions, practitioners