St. Mary’s University School of Law, the oldest Catholic university in the Southwest and the only law school in San Antonio, Texas, is seeking exceptional candidates for tenured and tenure-track faculty positions to start in the 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 academic years. 

We are building on our deep history of academic excellence and servant leadership, and we are eager to welcome new members into our vibrant intellectual community.

We are particularly interested in candidates with outstanding academic credentials, successful practice experience, a demonstrated record of scholarly research and publication, and a dedication to teaching excellence. We place great emphasis on fostering a supportive and engaging learning environment, and we are eager to find candidates who excel in the classroom and inspire students to achieve their best.

We are open to passionate and innovative teachers and scholars in all areas.  There are also some select Chair opportunities for strong lateral candidates in the areas of business law (to include tax), natural resources, and oil and gas.

St. Mary’s Law is committed to upholding the Marianist mission. Since our foundation in 1852 by the Society of Mary (Marianists), we have strived to integrate the liberal arts with professional studies, fostering a community where faculty and students alike contribute to a meaningful academic dialogue.  We are a Hispanic Serving Institution and are excited to bring cutting-edge teaching and compassionate mentoring to the large percentage of first-generation students that make up our student body.  

St. Mary’s Law embraces the AALS Statement on Hiring for Diversity, Equal Opportunity, and Affirmative Action. We strongly encourage applications from women, people of color, and individuals from diverse backgrounds, striving to create an academic community that reflects the richness of our global society.

If you share our commitment to fostering academic excellence, serving society, and providing exceptional education, we would be delighted to receive your application. Please submit a letter of interest, CV, and a list of at least three references to Professor Jena Martin, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, at lawfacultyhiring@stmarytx.edu

Join us as we continue to advocate for the Marianist mission, shaping the next generation of diverse leaders in law. Your unique perspective and dedication to teaching can contribute significantly to our vibrant and inclusive academic community.

St. Mary’s University is an Equal Opportunity Employer. All qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, ethnicity, color, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, citizenship status, physical or mental disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity/expression, veteran or military status (including special disabled veteran, Vietnam-era veteran, or recently separated veteran), predisposing genetic characteristics, domestic violence victim status, or any other protected category under applicable local, state, or federal law.  We look forward to receiving your application.

Nevada’s trial-level business courts are not as heavily observed as the Delaware Court of Chancery. Our in-state ecosystem does lacks anything quite like The Chancery Daily. But we do have Our Nevada Judges which has a broader focus.

With that in mind, I wanted to highlight a very recent Nevada Business Court decision from Judge Gall that considers whether the business judgment rule applies in the limited liability company context.

Nevada limited liability companies are governed by Chapter 86 of the Nevada Revised Statutes. Unlike Chapter 78, which governs corporations, there is no statutory business judgment rule. So what does this mean for limited liability companies? Should their management get business judgment rule protection?

Judge Gall faced a dispute where one party argued that the corporation statute’s business judgment rule and exculpation provisions should apply and the other party argued that because the operating agreement did not specifically set out a business judgment rule, that there should be no business judgment rule.

The Court found that “by adopting fiduciary duties . . . the members incorporated the business judgment rule to assess whether they breached those duties.” After reviewing some literature on the subject, the Court reasoned that when fiduciary duties are in play, it:

makes no sense to incorporate a duty of care without applying the business judgment rule to determine whether that duty has been breached—at least not without leading to an absurd result. With the fiduciary standard in one hand but without the business judgment rule in the other, the fact finder is left to determine whether the complained of transaction could have gone better. This is what the business judgment rule is meant to stop; otherwise, business will slowly stop as disgruntled stockholders and members repeatedly ask the court to step in the place of business fiduciaries and second-guess decisions made by those who are better positioned to act on behalf of the company. 

The Court explained that despite the statutory focus and codification of the business judgment rule for corporations, “Nevada also recognizes the common law, and this court sees no reason why it should or would not do so for LLCs.”

Of course, the common law and the Nevada statute have some differences. The Court decided not to “read in an exculpation provision—as framed in statute—where the Operating Agreement makes no mention of exculpation absent fraud, intentional misconduct, or knowing violation of the law.”

Although would probably be better drafting for an LLC’s operating agreement to specify business judgment rule protection and clear exculpation provisions, Nevada courts may apply a business judgment rule whenever the operating agreement adopts fiduciary duties.

Critically, fiduciary duties are not the default for Nevada LLCs. The statute makes clear that managers owe an “implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing” and whatever “duties, including, without limitation, fiduciary duties, if any, as are expressly prescribed by the articles of organization or the operating agreement.”

We are calling for papers that will link queer lives and queer theory to corporate law and governance, with the goal of publishing an edited collection or special issue publication.

There has been little connection between corporate governance and the queer space, and we wish to speak with all scholars, at any stage, who are interested in doing so.

‘Queer’ can mean different things to different people. For some, it is part of a personal identity. Here, connecting the queer to corporate governance involves providing spaces for queer people within corporate life. For others, it is an approach to thinking about social institutions. Here, connecting the queer to corporate governance involves questioning concepts and practices underlying corporate life, which may include interrogating the very concepts of identity which shape the focus on creating queer spaces. There can also be a playfulness to queer, to challenge pre-conceptions by subverting the established. 

We welcome submission from those interested in any aspect of the connection between the corporate and the queer. The questions below may help spark thoughts on possible contributions:

1. Queer as a Subject

  1. How can queer people be included in the corporate space at any level, such as in the boardroom, in the workplace, and amongst investors?;
  2. What are the arguments for (and against) queer inclusion in the corporate space?
  3. How does queer inclusion fit within DEI practice more generally, and how do current struggles over DEI affect the case for queer inclusion?

2. Queer as Method

  1. How can we identify heteronormativity in corporate law concepts?
  2. How can we challenge corporate power structures, and should we?
  3. To what extent is corporate governance suitable for connecting with queer theory?

3.     Interrelationships: Corporate Governance, Queer Lives and Queer Theory  

  1. What are some corporate illustrations of the interface between queer subjects and queer methods?
  2. What are some wider inputs to queer theory from the corporate space?
  3. What are the connections between the corporate law space and other disciplines that explore queer approaches?

4.     Queer as Subversion and Playfulness

  1. Can queer theory provide novel interpretations of corporate legal doctrine or practice?
  2. What are some playful connections between corporate law and other disciplines?

To indicate interest, please email us with a short note of your area of interest, rough title and (if available) short abstract and a short CV/bio to queercorporate@gmail.com by 5pm on August 20, 2025. 

Darren Rosenblum, McGill University
Brett McDonnell, University of Minnesota 
Jonathan Hardman, University of Edinburgh

Friend-of-the-BLPB Beth Burch has announced that the University of Georgia School of Law is conducting an open-rank search for four or five full-time, tenure-track or tenured faculty. Hiring priorities include multiple business law areas–contracts, bankruptcy, and secured transactions–as well as property, torts, environmental law, business law/corporations, banking, international law, administrative law, and employment law. You can find the posting here.

If you’re interested, feel free to reach out to Beth at LawHiring@uga.edu.

Friend of the BLPB Geeta Kohli (formerly Tewari) at Widener Law Delaware recently launched a newsletter on Substack called Defining Money that may be of interest to business law profs and their students (as well as others). She circulated a message about the newsletter through the AALS Section on Business Associations listserv earlier this week–very timely as we all start to prepare for fall classes. I have checked the newsletter out. Geeta covers a bunch of great topics (some traditional in the business law space and some nontraditional but truly helpful–including for family businesses and the divorce and trust/estate law areas that intersect with family business practice) informed by her business law background and personal experience. Here is what she personally noted in the listserv message.

I’ve recently launched a newsletter called Defining Money, where each week I break down a finance or business law term and pair it with a short story or example-designed especially for those of us who may have experienced financial issues or abuse. After the semester starts, I’ll be focusing more on contract and business related terms.

This project grew out of my desire to make financial concepts more accessible, particularly for students navigating complex legal or socio-economic systems.

I’d be honored if you would consider subscribing, and perhaps sharing it as a supplemental resource in a business or contract law connected course. It’s an interdisciplinary tool for financial literacy that I hope supports both teaching and empowerment.

You can find it here: https://definingmoney.substack.com/

I applaud this effort and others like it. So often it takes several attempts to get complete understanding among students in a course of some key definitions and concepts. As I set out to teach Corporate Finance again next month, I will have all that in mind once again. Different voices and communication modalities can help in the effort. I will look for ways to use the newsletter in class and on our class course management site along the way.

The 2026 National Business Law Scholars Conference (NBLSC) will be in Las Vegas, at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas on May 26 and 27, 2026. This will be the 17th meeting of the NBLSC, an annual conference that draws legal scholars from across the United States and around the world.

For attendees traveling from the east coast, the 2026 Law and Society Conference will be in San Francisco from May 28-31. The timing may make it possible for attendees to go directly from NBLSC in Las Vegas to Law and Society in San Francisco without needing to fly back east. The May date also allows us to host the event in Vegas before the summer grows uncomfortably hot.

The following comes from friend-of-the BLPB George S. Georgiev at the University of Miami School of Law:

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW

Location: Miami, FL

Subjects: Business Law, Environmental Law, Health Law, International Law, Law & Technology

Start Date: August 1, 2026

The University of Miami School of Law seeks up to four entry-level or lateral candidates to join our vibrant community beginning in Fall 2026.

We welcome applications from outstanding scholars who will add to the diversity of our faculty, contribute to the intellectual life of the school, enhance our teaching mission, and engage in meaningful service. Our subject-matter interests include, but are not limited to, Business Law, Environmental Law, Health Law, International Law (especially trade and international business), and Law & Technology.

Our search for lateral candidates includes a potential joint appointment with the University’s Frost Institute for Data Science & Computing. We seek eminent faculty who have an established reputation for producing high-profile research in areas relevant to the Institute’s goal of “enabling discovery through data-intensive research in fields ranging from medicine to earth sciences, urban planning, digital humanities, and business.” We are particularly interested in faculty whose research focuses on artificial intelligence and machine learning; such research could relate to any doctrinal area. To learn more about the Institute, see https://idsc.miami.edu/.

Interested candidates should apply online for the position via the University of Miami employment portal and submit a cover letter, curriculum vitae, the names of three references, and teaching evaluations (if available) in PDF format. Questions can be directed to Professor Kele Stewart, Chair, Faculty Appointments Committee, at Appointmentscommittee@law.miami.edu

The University of Miami is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Females, Minorities, Protected Veterans, and Individuals with Disabilities are encouraged to apply. Applicants and employees are protected from screening based on certain categories protected by Federal law.  Click here for additional information.

Job Status: Full time

Employee Type: Faculty

The University of Miami is an Equal Opportunity Employer – Females/Minorities/Protected Veterans/Individuals with Disabilities are encouraged to apply. Applicants and employees are protected from discrimination based on certain categories protected by Federal law. Click here for additional information.

From friend of the BLPB Emily Winston:

The University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law seeks to hire multiple entry-level and experienced faculty. We are especially interested in faculty who teach and write in the areas of Clinical Legal Education, Environmental Law, Business and Finance Law, International Law, Commercial Law and Bankruptcy, and Constitutional Law. Outstanding candidates from other areas will be considered and are encouraged to apply. Successful candidates will be hired on the tenure-track or with tenure. 

Candidates should have a Juris Doctor or equivalent degree. Additionally, a successful applicant should have a record of excellence in academia or in practice, the potential to be an outstanding teacher, and demonstrable scholarly promise.

Interested persons should apply as follows:

1. Go to: uscjobs.sc.edu/postings/search

2. Enter the posting number FAC00072PO25, or click on the link below:

3. Assistant, Associate, or Full Professor (General): uscjobs.sc.edu/postings/188094

4. Complete the application.

A formal application is required to be considered. Applicants are welcome to contact the hiring committee with any questions regarding the application process at hiring@law.sc.edu.  We anticipate beginning to review applications on August 1.

The University of South Carolina does not discriminate in educational or employment opportunities or decisions for qualified persons on the basis of age, ancestry, citizenship status, color, disability, ethnicity, familial status, gender (including transgender), gender identity or expression, genetic information, HIV/AIDs status, military status, national origin, pregnancy (false pregnancy, termination of pregnancy, childbirth, recovery therefrom or related medical conditions, breastfeeding), race, religion (including religious dress and grooming practices), sex, sexual orientation, veteran status, or any other bases under federal, state, local law, or regulations.

Emily advises that the clinic faculty at South Carolina Law have unified tenure/tenure-track positions and the same expectations and support for scholarship as colleagues who exclusively teach doctrinal courses. She notes that they anticipate beginning to review applications on August 1.  Finally she notes that “South Carolina is a lovely place to live and teach.   Feel welcome to reach out to our Faculty Selections Committee Co-Chairs, Lisa Martin and Elizabeth Chambliss, if you would like to discuss the position.”

Submissions are open for the 8th Conference on Law & Macroeconomics to be held on December 4-5, 2025 at the New York University School of Law in New York City. Submissions are due on or before September 15, 2025.

We live in a world of growing macroeconomic challenges brought about by the interconnected threats of climate change, pandemics, armed conflict, immigration, trade wars, financial instability, and ongoing technological disruption within the global markets for investment capital, goods, services, and labor. These challenges reinforce the importance of research at the intersection of law and macroeconomics. Together, these interconnected challenges are also the theme of the 8th Annual Conference on Law and Macroeconomics.

The conference organizers welcome submissions on the role of law, regulation, and institutions in:

  • Monetary policy and price stability
  • Financial regulation
  • Fiscal policy
  • Public debt
  • International trade
  • Development policy and financing for development
  • Economic growth and efficiency
  • Global macroeconomic/exchange rate coordination
  • The economic impact of climate change
  • Labor and migration patterns
  • Technological disruption

The call for papers is open to scholars from all relevant disciplines, including but not limited to law, macroeconomics, history, political science, and sociology.  Interested applicants should submit their papers for consideration on or before September 15, 2025 using this form. Abstracts and introductions are also welcome, but full drafts of accepted papers will be expected for distribution to conference participants by November 1, 2025.  Please send any questions about the conference or this call for papers to Dan Awrey at dan.awrey@cornell.edu and/or Michael Ohlrogge at ohlrogge@nyu.edu.

I posted about In re Facebook Derivative Litigation, 2018-0307, way back in in 2023, when the Delaware Court of Chancery denied a motion to dismiss. The action has become a sprawling set of claims arising out of Facebook’s violation of its FTC consent decree regarding data privacy, and the resulting scandal and penalties that followed. The parties just filed their pretrial briefing and let’s just say this thing might actually go to trial – a first for Caremark.

I’ve posted about the Caremark doctrine and its tensions multiple times, and I also address them in my draft paper, The Legitimation of Shareholder Primacy (which really, really needs to be updated because it was posted before the recent amendments to the DGCL). The main issue being, Caremark (including its sister doctrine, Massey) represents a hard limit on directors’ ability to seek profits: they may not do so by intentionally violating the law (or intentionally turning a blind eye to legal violations). That may be a necessary doctrine in order for corporate law to maintain its social legitimacy, but it sits uneasily aside the principle of shareholder primacy, not to mention the reality that corporations can organize wherever they like, and therefore will not choose jurisdictions that limit their ability to benefit shareholders. So this trial – coming at a moment when a number of corporations have threatened to leave Delaware over its (allegedly) too-strict policies – is awkwardly timed.

There are a number of different, but related, allegations in the action, some of which fit more neatly into the shareholder wealth maximization box than others. The most traditional one, and therefore the most boring, is that Zuckerberg traded on inside information; he sold stock knowing the company’s violations were going to be revealed. Another claim, which is novel in application but traditional in its basic outlines, is that the company agreed to pay a higher penalty in exchange for letting Zuckerberg personally off the hook with the FTC. That’s an unusual allegation but its shape – a company paid to benefit a controlling stockholder financially – fits within traditional parameters.

From a legal perspective, then, the headline claims are the ones that come squarely within Caremark: that the officers of Facebook intentionally violated the law in order to make money for the company, and the directors (including Marc Andreessen, Reed Hastings, and Peter Thiel) turned a blind eye. Obviously, of course, Facebook’s violation of its FTC consent decree resulted in financial harm to shareholders – the company paid a penalty, there was scandal, stock price drop, etc – but normally, if business decisions result in a loss, we don’t say it’s something shareholders can sue over; we assume boards took a risk and it didn’t pay off. Caremark, uniquely, provides you can’t do that for illegal conduct. Plus, of course, Caremark prohibits any argument by the board that, sure, maybe there was a loss in the end, but the profits were so enormous initially that shareholders came out ahead – which is something you could argue for an ordinary business decision. (At least, I don’t think Caremark allows that argument; we’ve never had a trial and a damages award so who knows.) So Caremark is an odd duck in a shareholder primacist framework: no, it says, boards of directors cannot do everything in their power to earn profits.

Clearly the Facebook plaintiffs are aware of this, because they try to suggest the lawbreaking wasn’t just about profiting Facebook: they also argue certain board members benefitted personally from Facebook’s practices because their related companies used the data shared by the company (Andreessen, Hastings, Thiel). That move is an attempt to shoehorn a more traditional financial conflict of interest into the Caremark claims in order to render them more palatable to the Delaware courts.

Anyway, the recent changes to Delaware law, which in general make it harder (impossible) for shareholders to bring any kind of lawsuit, do not, formally, apply to this case. That said, the trial (if it happens) and the appeal (inevitable) will operate in the shadow of a fairly obvious legislative rebuke to the Delaware judiciary, and quite frankly, I have no idea which way that will cut.