Photo of Haskell Murray

Haskell Murray

Subscribe to Haskell Murray's Posts

Professor Murray teaches business law, business ethics, and alternative dispute resolution courses to undergraduate and graduate students. Currently, his research focuses on corporate governance, mergers & acquisitions, sports law, and social entrepreneurship law issues.

Professor Murray is the 2018-19 President of the Southeastern Academy of Legal Studies in Business (“SEALSB”) and is a co-editor of the Business Law Professor Blog. His articles have been published in a variety of journals, including the American Business Law Journal, the Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, the Harvard Business Law Review, and the Maryland Law Review. Read More

1) I was not the only person who went to law school because I was terrified of math and accounting. Many of my students did too, which made teaching this required course much harder even after I explained to them how much accounting I actually had to understand as a litigator and in-house counsel.

2) I will always make class participation count toward the grade. Apparently paying tens of thousands of dollars a year for an education is not enough to make some students read their extremely expensive textbooks. A 20% class participation grade is a great incentive. Similarly, I will never allow laptops in the classroom. The subject matter is tough enough without the distraction of Instagram, Facebook and buying shoes on Zappos.

3) Students come to a required course with a wide range of backgrounds- some have never written a check and others have traded in stocks since they were teenagers and use Bitcoin. Teaching to the middle is essential.

4) As I suspected, when students are allowed to use an outline for an exam, they won’t study as hard or as thoroughly, and I will grade harder.

5) Never underestimate how little many students know about the…

Last week I blogged about enterprise risk management,  lawyers, and their “obligations” to counsel clients about human rights risks based in part on statements by the American Bar Association and Marty Lipton of Wachtell, who have cited the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. I posted the blog on a few LinkedIn groups and received some interesting responses from academics, in house counsel, consultants, and outside counsel, which leads me to believe that this is fertile ground for discussion. I have excerpted some of the comments below:

 “Corporations do have risk with respect to human rights violations, and this risk needs to be managed in a thoughtful manner that respects human dignity. I did wonder, though, whether you see any possible unintended consequences of asking attorneys to start advising on moral as well as legal rights?”

“I agree. Great post. Lawyers should always be ready to advise on both legal risks and what I call “propriety”. If a lawyer cannot scan for both risks, then he or she is either incompetent or has integrity issues. Companies that choose to take advice from a lawyer who is incompetent or has integrity issues probably have integrity issues too. I’m…

The NBA’s handling of what the NBA concluded was Donald Sterling’s now-infamous, racist-language-laden phone call with V. Stiviano has generated a lot of commentary (including my own).  As one might expect, the incident has led to some oft-repeated assertions that are not quite right.  So, in taking a break from my grading, I thought I’d deal with a couple of those issues right now. 

To start, if Sterling is forced to sell the Clippers, the NBA and the other team owners are not “taking” anything away from him that he has a right to keep.  He is an owner subject to an agreement that, according to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, allows the league to force Sterling to sell upon a three-fourths vote of other league owners.  As such, the league has, and has always had, the power to decide if Sterling would be allowed to own a team.  (Why the league owners didn’t act twenty years ago is a legitimate question, but one for another day.)

 That Sterling can be forced to sell should not be news to lawyers, at any rate.  This case reminds me of Lawlis v. Kightlinger & Gray, 562 N.E.2d 435 (Ind. App. 4th Dist. 1990). The case is taught in many Business Organizations courses. In that case, Lawlis was a partner the Kightlinger & Gray law firm. At some point, his alcoholism became a problem, and eventually he told the partners of his issues. Lawlis and his partners reached an agreement about how to move forward (one with a “no-second chances” provision).  Lawlis got things together for a bit, then returned to drinking, and he was given a second chance.  Lawlis apparently got sober and eventually insisted the firm should increase his partnership participation.  Instead, the firm decided to expel him by a 7-to-1 vote (Lawlis was the sole vote against expulsion).  Lawlis sued. 

The court was not convinced, and I would hope any court would look the same way at a vote to remove Sterling as an NBA owner. Even if they needed cause, I would opine that the league has it, but the likely don’t need it.  The Lawlis court explained: 

All the parties involved in this litigation were legally competent and consenting adults well educated in the law who initially dealt at arm’s length while negotiating the . . .  agreements here involved. At the time the partners negotiated their contract, it is apparent they believed . . . the “guillotine method” of involuntary severance, that is, no notice or hearing, only a severance vote to terminate a partner involuntarily need be taken, would be in the best interests of the partnership. Their intent was to provide a simple, practical, and above all, a speedy method of separating a partner from the firm, if that ever became necessary for any reason. We find no fault with that approach to severance.

 Where the remaining partners in a firm deem it necessary to expel a partner under a no cause expulsion clause in a partnership agreement freely negotiated and entered into, the expelling partners act in “good faith” regardless of motivation if that act does not cause a wrongful withholding of money or property legally due the expelled partner at the time he is expelled.

Lawlis,562 N.E.2d at 442-43.

Some have lamented that Sterling will still be a rich man from this, no matter what.  That is true, and the NBA has no way to change that.  Sterling must be properly compensated if he were forced to sell the team. But that’s the point.  In America, Sterling (like anyone else) is permitted (within the bounds of the law) to say racist and misogynist things and be a generally awful person without anyone taking away property.  On the other hand, it appears Sterling agreed to buy a team in a league with an agreement that has a guillotine clause that allows the league to force him to sell.  So be it.

Here are five other related points worth noting (at least, I think so), even if they are not as business-law focused. Click below for more.

Unless you have been under a rock, you’ve probably heard about the racially offensive (and morally repugnent) comments apparently made by Donald Sterling, owner of the NBA’s Los Angeles Clippers, made about African-Americans, including Magic Johnson.  Just moments ago, the league announced how it would respond.

NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that an NBA investigation has concluded that Sterling was the voice reflecting hateful speech, views that are “deeply offensive and harmful.”  (Note that the investigation was done by the Wachtell Lipton firm.)   

Commissioner Silver apologized for Sterling’s comments and vowed action. The result: Effective immediately, Sterling is banned for life from games, practices, facilities, and player personnel decisions, and he is barred from executive meetings.  In addition, the maximum fine of $2.5 million is levied, which will for to charities selected jointly by the NBA and the player’s association.  Silver said he will do everything in his power to help force a sale of the team. 

Silver said, “We stand together in condemning Mr. Sterling’s views. They have no place in the NBA.” Sterling said that a three-fourths vote of owners could force Donald Sterling to sell. He did not know how it would proceed, but Silver said he…

Regular readers know of my view that energy and energy law are closely related to business and business law.  Further to that point: Last week, a group of 20 organizations, including those representing the interests of business, oil, coal, aggregate, farm, and power sent an open letter to Pennsylvania state legislators stating their concerns about the state supreme court’s decision in Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  That decision overturned Act 13, which largely eliminated local government’s ability to prevent oil and gas operations in their jurisdictions through zoning.  The letter explains:

The opinion undermines the traditional and long-recognized authority of the Legislature to balance environmental and economic interests on a statewide basis, leading to the spectra of multiple levels of government and a myriad of agencies second guessing each other in deciding whether to approve particular developments and how to manage natural resources. This expansive, broad and vaguely case-by-case application of the Environmental Rights Amendment threatens to reestablish the very uncertainty and ambiguity that Act 13 and many other statutes were originally intended to address through adoption of a holistic, comprehensive regulatory program that carefully balances the Commonwealth twin interests in economic progress and environmental stewardship. 

The plurality opinion opens the door to a myriad of litigation, at all levels of government, attempting to thwart virtually any type of industrial, agricultural, commercial or residential facility and development. The affects of this ruling will be felt by employers in all industries and will certainly adversely impact efforts to promote job creation throughout the state.

I agree with these organizations on a number of issues here.  First, I think they are right the state legislature had the power to pass Act 13,  or at least something similar. I also agree that the plurality opinion unnecessarily invites litigation in a variety of contexts that could negatively impact both business and the environment.  On the other hand, I think that the legislature took an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to the legislation when a more modest version of the act could have been similarly effective. 

As I have explained previously, though there are very real risks related to hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas, much of the public, many politicians, and (in this case) judges are too easily distracted by risks that seem like they could be associated with the process, but aren’t. When judges assume facts, bad law (and bad policies) are very likely to follow. Building on that assessment, I have posted my article, Facts, Fiction, and Perception in Hydraulic Fracturing: Illuminating Act 13 and Robinson Township v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on here on SSRN.  Please click below to continue reading.

Over at realclearpolitics.com, a number of leading thinkers, including some leading business law folks such as Richard Epstein and Jonathan Adler, among others, have signed a public statement: Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both.  Following is a portion of the statement:

The last few years have brought an astonishing moral and political transformation in the American debate over same-sex marriage and gay equality. This has been a triumph not only for LGBT Americans but for the American idea. But the breakthrough has brought with it rapidly rising expectations among some supporters of gay marriage that the debate should now be over. As one advocate recently put it, “It would be enough for me if those people who are so ignorant or intransigent as to still be anti-gay in 2014 would simply shut up.”

The signatories of this statement are grateful to our friends and allies for their enthusiasm. But we are concerned that recent events, including the resignation of the CEO of Mozilla under pressure because of an anti-same-sex- marriage donation he made in 2008, signal an eagerness by some supporters of same-sex marriage to punish rather than to criticize or to persuade

…

They really don’t. 

To be clear, this is not a post bashing corporations (or government). It’s not really extolling the virtues of corporations, either. Instead, it’s just to make the point that, notwithstanding Citizens United or Hobby Lobby and other cases of their ilk, the idea that corporations are people is still a legal fiction.  A useful and important one, but a fiction nonetheless.  

On April 11, Corey Booker posted the following on Facebook:

In awful years past, corporations polluted the Passaic river to the point that it ended the days where people could eat from it, swim in it, and use it as a thriving recreation source. Today we announced a massive initiative to clean the Passaic river and bring it back to life again. The tremendous clean up effort will create hundreds of jobs and slowly over time restore one of New Jersey’s great rivers to its past strength and glory.

The river needs the clean-up, and I applaud the effort. Still, the reality is corporations did not pollute the Passaic River, at least not literally.  People working for the corporation did. It is agency law that allows a corporation to act in the first place, because the…

So, I am the fourth of our bloggers (here, here, and here), among others, to write on FOMO (fear of missing out), and I almost didn’t write this post for fear that my FOMO on the topic was the motivation:  FOMO of FOMO.  I decided that wasn’t the reason and that it was worth writing (at least for me).

FOMO has always been an issue for me.  I have always been a researcher, and I don’t mean just in the scholarly sense.  When I look for a car (and I really like cars), everything is on the table. Few people know more about the various options and configurations of vehicles on the market than I do.  It shows when I shop; I have never bought a car from someone who knows more about the product than I do.  (They know more about selling cars than I do, but not about the cars themselves.)

 This need to try to get it right (a common cause of FOMO) has mixed returns.  I never blow the budget on the car, which means I always know what I am missing.  Thus, my FOMO ensures in some instances that I…

As I discussed briefly last week, I think reverse veil piercing in the Hobby Lobby case is a bad idea, in part because it uses a doctrine designed to prevent fraud to impute characteristics to the entity. One of the reasons this concerns me is that there are other recent decisions that imply courts may be missing the point about the separate and distinctive nature of entities, even as the individual rights of entities appear to be expanding. 

In a recent West Virginia case, for example, a lower court allowed a wildly improper use of the statutory provision, “Unknown claims against dissolved corporation” to be the basis what became a $25 million jury award for punitive damages for emotional impact to a former entity’s shareholders. In the Order Addressing AIG Posttrial Motions (pdf) of May 1, 2012 (“Order”) Ryan Environmental, Inc. v. Hess Oil Co., Inc., Civil Action No. 10-C-20, the court adopted a plaintiff’s argument that, under W. Va. Code § 31D-14-1407(d), “the interests of the shareholders are joined with the interests of the corporation after a corporation’s dissolution.” See Order at 7.  The court later explained its view that, because the plaintiff’s former entity was dissolved, damages and hardships attributable to the shareholders were a sufficient basis for the defendants’ liability directly to the shareholders and that such damages and hardships did not need to attributed to the former entity.  That is, the defendants’ liability ran to the entity’s shareholders post-dissolution even though the harms claimed were never attributable to the entity.  Click below to read more.

With oral arguments today in the Hobby Lobby case, I thought I’d pile on a few last thoughts:

(1) As I explained here, entities should be able to take on a racial, religious, or gender identity in discrimination claims.  I would add that I feel similarly about sexual orientation, but (though I think it should be) that is still not generally federally protected. To the extent the law otherwise provides a remedy, I’d extend it to the entity. 

(2) It is reasonable to inquire, why is discrimination different than religious practice?  For me, I just don’t think religious exercise by an entity is the same as extending discrimination protection to an entity.  There is something about the affirmative exercise of religion that I don’t think extends well to an entity.   That is, discrimination happens to a person or an entity. Religious practice is an affirmative act that is different.  Basically, reification of the entity to the point of religious practice crosses a line that I think is unnecessary and improper because discrimination protection should be sufficient.

As a follow up to that, I also think it’s a reasonable question to ask: Why is religion different than speech?