Now that two months have passed since the last time I updated this chart, it seemed like a good opportunity to look at what happened in the votes that were still pending.

I also added a separate chart for Texas.

Nevada Running Results

As it stands, Nevada saw 18 firms attempt to shift to Nevada. Only three were unsuccessful. The list below includes 19 firms though because I added the Live Nation split off as something to track and discovered that Netcapital now seeks to shift from Utah to Nevada.

The three that failed seem driven by non-votes. Simply getting shareholders to vote seems to be a consistent problem. Eightco, Revelation Biosciences, and Nuburu all won majorities of the votes cast, but lacked sufficient votes overall.

Contractual disputes are an ongoing source of amusement to me, especially when the words of the deal are used to defeat the actual meaning of what the parties bargained for. To wit: VC Will’s recent opinion in Kim, et al. v. FemtoMetrix, Inc.

Avaco was a stockholder in FemoMetrix, and had signed a voting agreement with other stockholders.  That agreement gave Avaco the right to designate one director, and it chose Kim, who was then an Avaco employee.

The voting agreement had the following relevant terms:

1) Section 1.2(a) granted Avaco a designation right, subject to sections 1.6 and 1.4(a).

2)  Section 1.6 provided that Avaco could not designate a “bad actor” as defined by SEC rules.

3)  Section 1.4(a) provided that Avaco’s designee could be removed without Avaco’s approval, but only for “cause.”

4) Section 7.8 provided that amendments to the voting agreement required a stockholder vote, but an amendment specific to a particular investor – that did not “appl[y]” to all equally – would require that investor’s consent.  It also provided that Section 1.2(a) could not be amended without Avaco’s consent.

(At this point, “Jaws” music should be playing in your head.)

Avaco got into a…

Tenured Faculty – Cornell Law School

Founded in 1887, Cornell Law School is a top-tier law school. We offer a 3-year JD program for about 200 students per class, a one-year LLM program for about 90 students from countries throughout the world, and a doctoral (JSD) program for about 2-3 new students per year. Cornell Law School has 41 tenured and tenure-track faculty, including 20 with chaired faculty positions; and 15 clinical professors in the legal research and writing program and in clinics at the local, national, and international level. Our faculty is consistently ranked among the top in the country for scholarly productivity and influence, and has pre-eminence in many areas, including quantitative and qualitative empirical legal studies, international and comparative law, and robust doctrinal scholarship in core fields. Our school is committed to being recognized as the leader among law schools at combining inspiring theoretical, doctrinal, and experiential teaching with cutting-edge scholarship in a supportive, intellectually rich community, so that our graduates can achieve excellence in all facets of the legal profession.

Cornell Law School invites applications from experienced candidates for one or more senior-level faculty positions commencing in the 2026-2027 academic year. Particular focus will be given…

Miami has assembled a strong lineup of papers and presenters for its Law & Finance workshop. If there is a paper you’re interested in, you can register to attend remotely.

We are excited to announce the 2025-26 schedule for the Miami Law & Finance Workshop, set out below. All workshops will be held on zoom on Fridays, from 1pm to 2pm ET. Please use this form to register for the Fall workshops. We will send the draft paper and zoom link to registered participants one week before each workshop. The registration form for the Spring 2026 workshops will be circulated later in the year.   

Please feel free to share this with others who might be interested. We look forward to seeing you soon! 

Warm regards

Nikita Aggarwal, Caroline Bradley, & George Georgiev (workshop co-organizers)

Miami Law & Finance Workshop, 2025-26 

Fall 2025

1. Friday, August 22: William Magnuson (Texas A&M) presenting “The Deep Learning of Hedge Funds.” 

– Howell Jackson (Harvard) discussing.

2. Friday, September 5: Luca Enriques (Bocconi), Matteo Gatti (Rutgers), & Roy Shapira (Reichman) presenting “How the EU Sustainability Due Diligence Directive Could Reshape Corporate America.” 

– Sarah Haan (Brooklyn) discussing.

3. Friday, September 26: …

Although we’re likely in the slow season for these sorts of moves now, I found two recent announcements on EDGAR. Dillard’s announced for Texas and Liberty Media announced a spin out for Liberty Live to Nevada.

Dillard’s DExit

Dillard’s recently announced that it would seek to depart Delaware for Texas. Its proxy notes that had began to consider options in response to “certain high-profile litigation outcomes in Delaware that involved companies with ‘controlling stockholders’ ​. . . such as the Company.” It also took into account recent state initiatives and local contacts.

Dillard’s launched a special committee to look at the issue and charged it “to consider whether the Company should remain incorporated in Delaware or reincorporate in either Nevada or Texas.” The special committee hired its own counsel, Vinson & Elkins LLP. Dillard’s was represented by Haynes and Boone, LLP. For Delaware law, the special committee consulted with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP.

Regrettably, I was not able to identify whether the special committee hired Nevada counsel. Vinson & Elkins has three different offices in Texas, but doesn’t have on in Nevada yet. It may be that they obtained advice from a Nevada firm, but the firm just…

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

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…