Photo of Benjamin P. Edwards

Benjamin P. Edwards

Subscribe to Benjamin P. Edwards's Posts

Benjamin Edwards joined the faculty of the William S. Boyd School of Law in 2017. He researches and writes about business and securities law, corporate governance, arbitration, and consumer protection.

Prior to teaching, Professor Edwards practiced as a securities litigator in the New York office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. At Skadden, he represented clients in complex civil litigation, including securities class actions arising out of the Madoff Ponzi scheme and litigation arising out of the 2008 financial crisis. Read More

Omri Y. Marian has posted “Jurisdiction to Tax Corporations”
on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Corporate tax residence is fundamental to our federal income
tax system. Whether a corporation is classified as “domestic” or “foreign” for
U.S. federal income tax purposes determines the extent of tax jurisdiction the
United States has over the corporation and its affiliates. Unfortunately, tax
scholars seem to agree that the concept of corporate tax residence is
“meaningless.” Underlying this perception are the ideas that corporations
cannot have “real” residence because they are imaginary entities and because
taxpayers can easily manipulate corporate tax residence tests. Commentators try
to deal with the perceived meaninglessness by either trying to identify a
normative basis to guide corporate tax residence determination, or by
minimizing the relevance of corporate tax residence to the calculation of tax
liabilities. This Article argues that both of these approaches are misguided.
Instead, this Article suggests a functional approach, under which corporate tax
residence models are designed to support the policy purposes of corporate
taxation. This Article concludes that the U.S. should reform the way it defines
“domestic” corporations for tax purposes by adopting a two-pronged tax
residence test: the place where the

We are very excited to welcome Haskell Murray to the BLPB as a contributing editor.  Many of our readers will already be familiar with Haskell’s work, particularly in the area of benefit corporations, but just in case, you can view his profile here, his SSRN page here, and some related past blog posts here and here.  As a contributing editor, Haskell is not committed to posting on any particular day (or, for that matter, to post at all)–but given what I’ve seen from him in the past, I doubt we’ll have to wait too long for one of his excellent contributions.  So, from all of us here at the BLPB–welcome, Haskell, and thanks for coming on board!

Grant M. Hayden & Matthew T. Bodie have posted “Larry
from the Left: An Appreciation” on SSRN. 
Here is the abstract:

This essay approaches the scholarship of the late Professor
Larry Ribstein from a progressive vantage point. It argues that Ribstein’s
revolutionary work upended the “nexus of contracts” theory in
corporate law and provided a potential alternative to the regulatory state for
those who believe in worker empowerment and anti-cronyism. Progressive
corporate law scholars should look to Ribstein’s scholarship not as a hurdle to
overcome, but as a resource to be tapped for insights about constructing a more
egalitarian and dynamic economy.

Jennifer Taub has published a new book, “Other People’s
Houses: How Decades of Bailouts, Captive Regulators, and Toxic Bankers Made
Home Mortgages a Thrilling Business.” 
Here is an excerpt from the Yale University Press description:

Focusing new light on the similarities between the savings
and loan debacle of the 1980s and the financial crisis in 2008, Taub reveals
that in both cases the same reckless banks, operating under different names,
received government bailouts, while the same lax regulators overlooked fraud
and abuse. Furthermore, in 2013 the situation is essentially unchanged. The
author asserts that the 2008 crisis was not just similar to the S&L
scandal, it was a severe relapse of the same underlying disease. And despite modest
regulatory reforms, the disease remains uncured: top banks remain too big to
manage, too big to regulate, and too big to fail.

UPDATE: The book will be in bookstores in May, but can be
pre-ordered now.

Bill Black takes down claims of a “victory for the
government in its aggressive effort to hold banks accountable for their role in
the housing crisis.”  (HT: naked
capitalism.)  The full piece is available here, and
I highly recommend you go read the whole thing. 
What follows is a brief excerpt:

The author of the most brilliantly comedic statement ever
written about the crisis is Landon Thomas, Jr…. 
Everything worth reading is in the first sentence, and it should trigger
belly laughs nationwide. “Bank of America, one of the nation’s largest banks,
was found liable on Wednesday of having sold defective mortgages, a jury
decision that will be seen as a victory for the government in its aggressive
effort to hold banks accountable for their role in the housing crisis.” … Yes,
we have not seen such an aggressive effort since Captain Renault told Rick in
the movie Casablanca that he was “shocked” to discover that there was gambling
going on (just before being handed his gambling “winnings” which were really a
bribe)…. The jurors found that BoA (through its officers) committed an orgy of
fraud in order to enrich those

…

Sarah C. Haan has posted “Opaque Transparency: Outside
Spending and Disclosure by Privately-Held Business Entities in 2012 and Beyond”
on SSRN.  Here is a portion of the
abstract:

In this Article, I analyze data on outside spending from the
treasuries of for-profit business entities in the 2012 federal election – the
very spending unleashed by Citizens United v. FEC. I find that the majority of
reported outside spending came from privately-held, not publicly-held
companies, including a significant proportion of unincorporated business
entities such as LLCs, and that more than forty percent of spending by
privately-held businesses was characterized by opaque transparency: Though
fully disclosed under existing campaign finance disclosure laws, something
about the origin of the money was obscured. This happened when political
expenditures were spread among affiliated business-donors, typically donating
similar amounts to the same recipient(s) on similar dates, and when for-profit
business entities were used as shadow money conduits. I also argue that, due to
differences between access-oriented and replacement-oriented electoral
strategies, for-profit businesses engaged in outside spending in a federal
election are likely to be experiencing insider expropriation. The expropriation
of a business entity’s political voice by a controlling person is another
potential

…

Stephen Davidoff recently posted a piece on DealBook
entitled “A Push to End Securities Fraud Lawsuits Gains Momentum,” in which he notes
that “Halliburton is asking the Supreme Court to confront one of the
fundamental tenets of securities fraud litigation: a doctrine known as “’fraud
on the market.’”  He goes on to provide a
lot of interesting additional details, so you should definitely go read the
whole thing, but I focused on the following:

In its argument, Halliburton is asking the
Supreme Court to confront one of the fundamental tenets of securities fraud
litigation: a doctrine known as “fraud on the market.” The doctrine has its
origins in the 1986 Supreme Court case Basic v. Levinson. To state a claim for
securities fraud, a shareholder must show “reliance,” meaning that the
shareholder acted in some way based on the fraudulent conduct of the company. In
the Basic case, the Supreme Court held that “eyeball” reliance — a requirement
that a shareholder read the actual documents and relied on those statements
before buying or selling shares — wasn’t necessary. Instead, the court adopted
a presumption, based on the efficient market hypothesis, that all publicly
available information about

…

Really great piece by Justin Fox on “What We’ve Learned from
the Financial Crisis” over at the Harvard Business Review.  What follows is a brief excerpt, but you’ll want to go read the whole thing.

Five years ago the global financial system seemed on the
verge of collapse. So did prevailing notions about how the economic and
financial worlds are supposed to function. The basic idea that had governed
economic thinking for decades was that markets work…. In the summer of 2007,
though, the markets for some mortgage securities stopped functioning…. [T]he
economic downturn was definitely worse than any other since the Great
Depression, and the world economy is still struggling to recover…. Five years
after the crash of 2008 is still early to be trying to determine its
intellectual consequences. Still, one can see signs of change…. To me, three
shifts in thinking stand out: (1) Macroeconomists are realizing that it was a
mistake to pay so little attention to finance. (2) Financial economists are
beginning to wrestle with some of the broader consequences of what they’ve
learned over the years about market misbehavior. (3) Economists’ extremely
influential grip on a key component of the economic

…

1. Russell
G. Pearce & Brendan M. Wilson on Business Ethics

 

This Essay
makes three contributions to the field of business ethics …. First, the Essay
identifies the dominant approaches to business ethics as profit maximization,
social duty, and ordinary ethics, and summarizes the claims made by proponents
of each perspective. We intend this categorization as a way to refine the
distinctions between and among various views of business ethics and to address
the conundrum that John Paul Rollert has described as the “academic anarchy
that is business ethics…. Second, the Essay explores the strengths and
weaknesses of these three approaches. It suggests that their emphasis on
viewing business persons and organizations as existing autonomously, rather
than within webs of relationships, helps explain why the field of business
ethics has had minimal influence on business conduct, as does the false
dichotomy between economic and ethical conduct that proponents of these
approaches often embrace…. Third, the Essay proposes an alternative approach
that would locate business ethics at the center of business conduct. This approach
embraces the relational character of business behavior. It offers a conception
of self-interest that recognizes the relational dimension of self-interest and
identifies mutual benefit as the…

Hardcover book forthcoming. 
Here is a description from the Amazon product page:

Since the 1980s,
society’s wealthiest members have claimed an ever-expanding share of income and
property. It has been a true counterrevolution, says Pierre Rosanvallon–the
end of the age of growing equality launched by the American and French
revolutions. And just as significant as the social and economic factors driving
this contemporary inequality has been a loss of faith in the ideal of equality
itself. An ambitious transatlantic history of the struggles that, for two
centuries, put political and economic equality at their heart, The Society of
Equals calls for a new philosophy of social relations to reenergize egalitarian
politics. For eighteenth-century revolutionaries, equality meant understanding
human beings as fundamentally alike and then creating universal political and
economic rights. Rosanvallon sees the roots of today’s crisis in the period
1830-1900, when industrialized capitalism threatened to quash these
aspirations. By the early twentieth century, progressive forces had begun to
rectify some imbalances of the Gilded Age, and the modern welfare state
gradually emerged from Depression-era reforms. But new economic shocks in the
1970s began a slide toward inequality that has only gained momentum in the
decades since.