Uncategorized

Subscribe to Uncategorized via RSS

It’s the day after Thanksgiving so I’ll post part 2 of my discussion in ESG in the Trump/Vance era next week.

Today, as students are stressed out over finals, here’s a post to brighten their day. Please share and forward far and wide.

We are pleased to invite your school to send a team to participate in the inaugural University of Miami Transactional Skills Competition, designed to provide law students with an unparalleled opportunity to refine their transactional lawyering skills in a challenging and dynamic setting.

In keeping with the vibrant culture of Miami, the details and challenges for this competition will be sophisticated, unexpected, and innovative, embodying the city’s forward-thinking ethos. This competition presents a distinctive opportunity for law students to engage with real-world, progressive transactional scenarios in emerging industries.

Unlike traditional moot court or contract negotiation contests, this event invites participants to navigate the complexities of contract drafting while considering broader business factors. Through a blend of virtual and in-person rounds, students will manage high-stakes negotiations while developing essential skills in negotiation, strategic thinking, and client representation. This comprehensive experience prepares participants to excel in transactional law, providing them with the expertise necessary to succeed at the intersection…

I was struck by this article recently published in the WSJ on the use of AI for investor relations:

Investor relations departments at companies such as shoe brand Skechers USA and networking-systems and software provider Ciena have begun using generative artificial-intelligence to help prepare their earnings commentary.

Some have used generative AI to predict the questions analysts might ask, for example, and to ready the best answers….

Executives at many companies are using AI to refine word choice in their prepared remarks, for instance, in deciding whether to say the quarter was “strong” or “solid,” said Dan Sandberg, head of quantitative research and solutions at S&P Global Market Intelligence. The firm’s tool recently preferred “strong,” based on the earnings metrics of other companies that used the word on their earnings calls, he said. 

Generative AI can also read the harmonics in executives’ prepared statements on earnings, assessing them as upbeat, gloomy or something more measured…

As any securities litigator knows, these are exactly the kinds of nuances of communication that – when they become the subject of a securities fraud lawsuit – are routinely dismissed by courts as “puffery,” i.e., conveying no material information to investors. For example, a very…

Last week, Delaware corporate law was on my mind, as it sometimes is. Thursday, alone, was a banner day for thinking, talking, and writing about Delaware corporate law. Tennessee Law had the pleasure of hosting Álvaro Pereira from Georgia State Law to talk about his work at the intersection of venture capital financings and Delaware corporate law. Earlier in the day, I was on the telephone talking to my Tennessee Bar Association colleagues about our April 2025 Business Law Forum that features a session on recent Delaware corporate law happenings.

Then, late Thursday, I learned that friend-of-the-BLPB Larry Cunningham also was thinking (and writing) about Delaware corporate law last week. In a Bloomberg Law article posted Thursday, Delaware Corporate Law Still Gold Standard Amid ESG Blowback, Larry pushes back against the wholesale federalization of corporate governance in response to the debate over the consideration of environmental, social, and governance factors in board decision making.

Delaware maintains its stature because it favors no one. Critics from the right declare it has adopted an anti-shareholder and approach sympathetic to the environmental, social, and governance movement, while critics from the left blame Delaware for stalling ESG. Logic suggests that one of these

…

Bloomberg had a story this week on some new anti-ESG shareholder proposals put forth by the National Legal and Policy Center. The proposals ask McDonald’s and other companies to de-link executive pay from diversity goals, on the grounds that, among other things, DEI programs are now the subject of various lawsuits (I will leave it to the reader to imagine a picture of a guy in a hot dog suit).

I had a very mixed reaction to this news. My priors are, there are a lot of legitimate criticisms of DEI programs – they’re ineffective, they’re greenwashing, and the compensation measures are weak – but I worry that many of the current attacks are not grounded in concern that DEI programs are ineffective, but in concerns that they are effective in making workplaces and other spaces more welcoming to underrepresented groups, a position that I find morally objectionable.

Historically, though, anti-ESG proposals tend to fare very poorly at the ballot box, and even though activists like Robby Starbuck have been successful in intimidating companies into backing away from DEI efforts, it is not at all clear this is something shareholders support. Therefore, my original thinking was, I’m…

Earlier this year, the SEC released a rule treating significant market participants as “dealers” or “government security dealers.” The fact sheet explains the rationale was to update existing rules to capture modern electronic trading activity. The rule would apply to businesses that are:

  • Regularly expressing trading interest that is at or near the best available prices on both sides of the market for the same security and that is communicated and represented in a way that makes it accessible to other market participants; or
  • Earning revenue primarily from capturing bid-ask spreads, by buying at the bid and selling at the offer, or from capturing any incentives offered by trading venues to liquidity supplying trading interest.

At the time, I didn’t see the rule as particularly controversial. Market-makers have long been regulated. As trading technology changed, market participants began acting like market-makers without operating under the same regulatory standards. Firms subject to the rule would be required to register and possibly join an SRO if appropriate. The proposal generated a significant comment file and predictable litigation followed.

Two cases challenging the rule were filed in Texas. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the rule in both cases, one filed by the…

Bloomberg Law recently covered the volume of records litigation going on in Delaware’s Chancery Court. These paragraphs frame the rise:

Records suits, which require only preliminary suspicions, are designed to resolve narrow disagreements over how to enforce a core shareholder right. But Delaware’s judges are spending significant chunks of time policing the process, as in recent fights over Amazon.com Inc’s antitrust woes, Boeing Co.’s safety scandals, and the $8 billion Paramount Global-Skydance Media merger.

“Nobody’s happy with the state of affairs,” said Widener University law professor Lawrence Hamermesh. “It’s a mess.”

Everyone involved would rather be doing something more substantive, but they’re responding rationally to structural incentives, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, the court’s chief judge, said at George Washington University. Although getting inside information offers clear advantages, “complaints just get longer and longer,” she said Oct. 25. “I’m not sure I need all that at the pleading stage, but it’s not hard to see why they’re doing it, and I can’t advise against it.”

Shareholder attorneys blame the logjam on board stonewalling, while companies say the ballooning cost is affecting settlement leverage. “Shareholders aren’t in the engine room every day, so there was wisdom in

…

Well, the Fifth Circuit reached its decision in National Center for Public Policy Research et al. v. SEC, which I previously blogged about here and here. As I predicted, the panel chose to leave the SEC’s 14a-8 review process in place, but also as I suspected, Judge Jones – the only GOP appointee on the panel – dissented.

So I presume we’ll see a petition for rehearing en banc, and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the full court took up the case, meaning, this may not the final word.

Recall, the claim was that the SEC engages in viewpoint discrimination when it issues no-action letters regarding companies’ attempts to exclude shareholder proposals from their proxy statements.  NCPPR claimed the SEC favors liberal proposals and disfavors conservative ones.  Separately, the National Association of Manufacturers intervened to argue that the entire 14a-8 system is unauthorized by the Exchange Act and is unconstitutional.

The SEC’s main argument was that no-action letters are not final orders subject to challenge.  The Democratic appointees on the panel agreed, but assuming Judge Jones’s dissent is a template for how the full Fifth Circuit would view the matter, it threatens to scramble the 14a-8…

Elon Musk is using his new quasi-official role with the federal government to threaten to preempt Delaware law with federal corporate governance standards, if the Delaware Supreme Court does not restore his Tesla pay package.

And another thing, on this week’s Shareholder Primacy podcast, Mike Levin talks with Matt Moscardi of Free Float Analytics about what shareholders should and do look for in director candidates, and how to use advanced data and modeling to identify good and bad directors. Available on Spotify, Apple, and Youtube.

Like many of you, I’m still digesting the election results and mulling what it will mean for financial regulation.  At the least, here are my early expectations:

  • The independence of the SEC will be tested.  There are two ways I can see this happening.  First, Chair Gensler could decline to resign and simply serve out his term.  President-elect Trump has promised to fire him.  But
    • …

    Many readers know Bill Carney, Professor Emeritus at Emory Law. Bill’s scholarly and instructional work in business finance has enlightened so many of us. That, alone, is a great legacy of his many years of research, writing, and teaching.

    But now we have another reason to celebrate Bill and the mark he is leaving on our world. Last week, Emory announce a major gift from Bill, creating the William and Jane Carney Center for Business and Transactional Law at Emory Law. Many know about Emory Law’s historical leadership in business law through its Center for Transactional Law and Practice (which is encompassed in the Carney Center). Bill has been a strong component and proponent of that leadership. This gift will undoubtedly ensure a continued academic and instructional focus on business law at Emory Law for the foreseeable future.

    I am thrilled for Emory Law and my friends there. And we all can be grateful to Bill for so much–including this. Business law education needs more of this kind of support.