Photo of Marcia Narine Weldon

Marcia Narine Weldon

Subscribe to Marcia Narine Weldon's Posts

Professor Narine Weldon is the director of the Transactional Skills Program, Faculty Coordinator of the Business Compliance & Sustainability Concentration, Transactional Law Concentration, and a Lecturer in Law.

She earned her law degree, cum laude, from Harvard Law School, and her undergraduate degree, cum laude, in political science and psychology from Columbia University. After graduating, she worked as a law clerk to former Justice Marie Garibaldi of the Supreme Court of New Jersey, a commercial litigator with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen and Hamilton in New York, an employment lawyer with Morgan, Lewis and Bockius in Miami, and as a Deputy General Counsel, VP of Global Compliance and Business Standards, and Chief Privacy Officer of Ryder, a Fortune 500 Company. In addition to her academic position, she serves as the general counsel of a startup and a nonprofit.  Read More

Follow:Marcia's Linkedin Profile

I just returned from the Annual Conference of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) in Montreal, Canada.  It was a great conference, packed with a variety of panels, paper presentations, workshops, social opportunities, and events showcasing this beautiful city to the north.  Hence, there’s much that could be shared!  In today’s post, I’ve decided to highlight two conference panels whose format I found to be creative and intellectually exciting.  Both identified an overarching theme, and then scholars with divergent interests discussed the theme in the context of their own research.  Then, after panelists’ initial remarks, the moderator posed questions to panel participants before welcoming audience queries.   

Stephen Park assembled and moderated a group of scholars (including me!) to discuss interconnections among global financial markets and sovereign actors, as both regulators and market participants.  Tim Samples examined sovereign debt restructuring; Matthew Turk focused on the sovereign/banking nexus and interactions between governments and intergovernmental actors; Jeremy Kress discussed bank capital requirements for sovereign debt; and, I considered the use of sovereign debt to meet clearinghouse margin requirements.  The panel was a lot of fun and we were all really grateful to Stephen for taking the lead in organizing it! …

In the next few weeks, I’ll be blogging about my article, “Incomplete Clearinghouse Mandates,” forthcoming in the American Business Law Journal (ABLJ).  The ABLJ is a triple-blind peer review journal published quarterly “on behalf of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB).”   Its articles explore a range of business and corporate law topics, and it is a great resource for academics, industry professionals, and others.  Its “mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice…[and it] search[es] for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law.”

One aspect of publishing with the ABLJ that I found invaluable was the reviewers’ feedback.  Their comments were tremendously helpful, and addressing issues in my article that they highlighted substantially increased the quality of the finished product.  I want to send a big THANK YOU to those reviewers!

I’m also an ad hoc reviewer for the ABLJ.  This too has been a very worthwhile experience.  Just as interviewing others can improve your interviewing abilities, reviewing the articles of others can improve your…

When I first met co-blogger Haskell Murray at SEALSB, we talked about running.  Last month, he shared stories of inspirational runners embodying toughness, self-discipline, humility, and perseverance.  I loved his post.  Yesterday at a family gathering, my sister ribbed me for telling everyone and anyone who would listen about one of the most inspirational books I’ve ever read: Running for My Life: One Lost Boy’s Journey from the Killing Fields of Sudan to the Olympic Games.  While running this morning with a friend, I found myself proving her point.  And when I saw that three days ago, Another chapter in the amazing life story of the Bowerman Track Club’s Lopez Lomong had been written, I decided it was my turn to share with BLPB readers about one of the runners who most inspires me.

As a six-year-old, now two-time U.S. Olympian Lopez Lomong was taken from his mother’s arms by soldiers during a church service in Sudan.  After several weeks, he and three older boys he calls his “angels” escaped from a rebel prison camp and ran towards what they thought was their village, Kimotong.  Instead, they were running towards Kenya, where they encountered border guards who…

I’m at the tail end of teaching my summer transactional lawyering course. Throughout the semester, I’ve focused my students on the importance of representations, warranties, covenants, conditions, materiality, and knowledge qualifiers. Today I came across an article from Practical Law Company that discussed the use of #MeToo representations in mergers and acquisitions agreements, and I plan to use it as a teaching tool next semester. According to the article, which is behind a firewall so I can’t link to it, thirty-nine public merger agreements this year have had such clauses. This doesn’t surprise me. Last year I spoke on a webinar regarding #MeToo and touched on the the corporate governance implications and the rise of these so-called “Harvey Weinstein” clauses. 

Generally, according to Practical Law Company, target companies in these agreements represent that: 1) no allegations of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct have been made against a group or class of employees at certain seniority levels; 2) no allegations have been made against  independent contractors; and 3) the company has not entered into any settlement agreements related to these kinds of allegations. The target would list exceptions on a disclosure schedule, presumably redacting the name of the accuser to preserve…

Like co-blogger Joan Heminway, I felt it a great honor and pleasure to attend the second annual Women’s Leadership in Legal Academia Conference last week (thanks, Joan, for bringing it to my attention via the BLPB!).  It was a fabulous two days – an opportunity to reconnect with colleagues from around the country, meet new ones, learn a ton, and participate in many highly-engaging discussions.  And as a UVA JD/MBA, it was also a wonderful chance to return to C’ville, catch up with a few former professors, and buy a much needed new pair of running shoes (Nike outlet new since my time!).

I loved Joan’s “mini-workshop.”  It really challenged teams of attendees to grapple with difficult scenarios (see yesterday’s post), provided valuable leadership insights, and reminded me of summer reading I want to do!  During the workshop, Joan mentioned the book Emotional Intelligence.  It’s been on my “must read” list for years.  Overall, the scenarios brought to life the emotional savvy (and regulation) essential to great leadership, and left me with two overarching thoughts.  First, in any situation, doing one’s best to understand the persons (including oneself!) and complexities involved is foundational to effective leadership.  It…

On Thursday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) held an open meeting to consider:

Supplemental Proposal on Exemption from Derivatives Clearing Organization Registration

Proposed Rule on Registration with Alternative Compliance for Non-U.S. Derivatives Clearing Organizations

Proposed Rule on Customer Margin Rules relating to Security Futures

In Special Report: CFTC advances two proposals amending oversight of non-U.S. clearinghouses, the FIA noted:

…the five members of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission voted unanimously to release a proposed rulemaking designed to create a less burdensome regulatory regime for foreign clearinghouses that clear swaps for U.S. customers…

A related proposal fared less well, however.  The agency’s two Democratic commissioners strongly objected to a supplemental proposal to exempt foreign clearinghouses from U.S. regulation if they are subject to regulation in their home countries that is comparable to the U.S….Despite the objections, the supplemental proposal passed by a vote of three to two and will be published for public comment. 

As I’ve noted, the regulation of derivatives clearing has been a source of conflict between international policymakers, particularly since the financial crises of 2007-08 and the subsequent global clearing mandates.  An article in the FT, CFTC agrees to rein in rules for…

In reading Izabella Kaminska’s Why dealing with fintechs is a bit like dealing with pirates [FT Alphaville is free, but registration is required], I thought of two points from past blogs.  First, the critical, controversial issue of who should have access to an account at a central bank.  The article notes China’s decision to require “domestic fintechs like Alipay and WeChat…[to] hold their customer deposits on a full reserve basis at the central bank directly,” and also points to Governor Mark Carney’s recent discussion of permitting fintech companies to deposit funds at the Bank of England.  Second, the strategic point of recognizing when change is inevitable, and proactively helping to shape it.  Kaminska seems to suggest that a potential reason for this expansion in central bank account access is recent power shifts in the area, and central bankers’ desire to proactively shape the inevitable changes on the horizon in financial markets.  As is generally the case, Kaminska’s piece is a worthwhile read.      

I don’t have enough material for another focused post on advice for new business law professors (see posts I, II, III, and IV).  However, I do have a smattering of additional thoughts that I wanted to share in hopes that new professors, and potentially others, might find them helpful.  So, in no particular order:

  • As in much of life, less is generally more. Specifically, in prepping a new class, in your excitement, you might initially want to try to cover almost all of the casebook.  Just say no!  For example, given my research interests, I always wanted to cover derivatives etc. in my Banking and Financial Institutions Law course.  However, I finally learned that in a three-hour course without prerequisites, I only had time to cover how banks (and some bank-like financial institutions) were structured, regulated, and handled when in trouble. 
  • I think it’s helpful to add syllabus language (and note it to students) along the lines of the following: “In practice, the learning experience of each course is unique. I reserve the right to modify the scheduled readings or material to be covered to promote the best educational experience for students.” I certainly don’t

…

Those who follow developments in derivatives clearing know that the regulation of this area has frequently been a source of conflict among international regulators (see When Regulators Collide).  This past week, in the Financial Times article CFTC chair complains to European Commission over regulation jibe [subscription required], Philip Stafford and Jim Brunsden report that an EU official’s comments during a recent conference, which included the phrase “you fell for it,” in reference to a March agreement between the EU and the US, spurred CFTC Chairman Christopher Giancarlo to write EU Commissioner in charge of Financial Stability, Valdis Dombrovskies, to ask for a clarification of the comments.   For me, the article did double-duty: it updated me about happenings in one of my research areas and it reminded me of the importance of our words.      

Today’s blog is the second post (first here) about advice for new business law profs.  It is also the promised follow-on to last week’s post, particularly my response to co-blogger Haskell Murray’s comment.

I am an assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business, and I’ve also taught in law schools.  The advice I’ll share today is generally applicable in both business and law school environments.

“Negotiation and Dispute Resolution” is one of my absolute favorite courses to teach!  However, I came to the area by happenstance.  During my PhD studies at Wharton, I wanted to fulfill my TA responsibilities by assisting the securities law professor.  He didn’t need a TA.  Fortunately, Professor Ken Shropshire did for his negotiations courses.  And as they say, the rest is history.  I’ve now taught dispute resolution courses, mediated cases, am on FINRA’s arbitration roster, and recently wrote an arbitration-related article with my OU colleague Professor Dan Ostas.  So, likely the most important advice of this post that I often share with students and others is to be open to unexpected opportunities in life, especially when the door to the option you originally wanted is closed.…