@jaykesten.bsky.social
Corporate Governance/M&A/Corporate Finance Prof; proud musical theatre parent; Letterkenny/Shoresy enjoyer. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1322673 https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sLt0lIAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao
*precedent
This exact move motivated me to write a paper about the consequentialism in Trump v. US re: presidential immunity, and how we in the corporate law area have decades of useful data/precent: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
What about "methodological opportunism?"
Another recent paper just posted to SSRN. I am particularly proud of this one because I am co-authoring with two students who began as research assistants, but whose work ethic and work product was so wonderful that they deserved a place on the byline.
papers.ssrn.com/abstract=632...
Just posted a paper to SSRN: PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY: A LESSON FROM CORPORATE LAW (papers.ssrn.com/abstract=629...). Would love commentary, and - if any law review editors are reading - a home for the piece!
This is an extremely interesting topic. I’d very much like to hear more. Following, and I’d be thrilled to discuss offline if you would like?
Proud to be the 2nd backer 😎 on @BackerKit Crowdfunding for Critters: Wandering Monsters, printing fantasy graphic novel! www.backerkit.com/c/projects/m...
Will you heckle like you are sitting next to the penalty box as a chippy hockey game?
I've been having this discussion with my students. They don't like this at all, and that's across the ideological spectrum. I worry, too, about the spillover on our public markets. We have so few new IPOs, and more than ever involve controlling SH structures.
Don’t be silly. Every once in awhile I ask ChatGPT if I’ve missed anything.
Yeah, apparently this was just an effort for me to give a "hot take" on the Governor, and when I actually started talking about the law they told me they'd be back in touch. Maybe. When a follow-up was necessary.
Who knew that "strike suits" would be about forcing companies to fall in line rather than just extracting some settlement fees. It's a wild new world.
I'm actually speaking with a reporter about this lawsuit soon. I have plenty of thoughts, but is there anything you think I should emphasize?
To say nothing of the rather bizarre loss-causation arguments. Yikes.
Like Ben, I am shocked (but shouldn't be) by the court's interpretation of the PSLRA as applied here. I'm also mystified about how Target both trades in an efficient market, but the voluminous news coverage was irrelevant to the "total mix."
Also, the draft that you posted a few days back has been exceptionally helpful with my thinking. Thanks!
That should say not so much DEI *explicitly,* but...
It's a more macro take on corporate governance in the shadow of the culture wars (my current working title). Not so much DEI, but the bigger question of corporate political activity/issue advocacy and related SH activism. Boy have the ideological tables turned since Citizens United!
I am desperately trying to finish a piece for this cycle that touches on precisely this curious ideological shift. Would be thrilled for your thoughts.
Corporate political spending should be a matter of shareholder concern/approval. There was a lot of eyerolling when I presented a paper a nearly a decade ago and explained how this would avoid political extortion: surely the government would never ask public corporations to kiss the ring!?
My allegedly libertarian friends tell me that all we're seeing here is the Silicon Valley Bro "move fast and break things" mentality, and so I shouldn't worry about it. Some of them even concede that maybe that's not a great way to run the infrastructure of the largest economy in the world.
What if...and hear me out here, cuz it's crazy ... these firms genuinely believe that what they are doing is, in fact, value-maximizing!?
We're watching the classical liberal tropes about the marketplace for ideas implode under their own weight right in front of us. And, ironically, being lectured simultaneously about how all viewpoints, no matter how absurd or extremist, must be engaged with seriously and civilly.
This is such a lovely complement to my morning coffee. Thanks for this, Ann !
Yes, apparently all they want is more "public comment." Also, in unrelated news, do you know how many people I've seen complain about how "we the people" need to stop subsidizing banks by paying for the FDIC?
That's a really interesting point! I should try again but with the input of a strong student outline. Maybe I'll solicit a couple from my top students and see what the model can do with that.
When I run my current (and the last few years') exams through the LLMs, they give B/B- answers at best. Mostly because they can give you headlines, but no real analysis and absolutely garbage case coverage/application of facts. Half the time, they make up the facts of key cases.
I'm torn about this one. I write exams such that particular issues are presented. I do that to ensure that I'm testing what I consider to be a representative sample of the core concepts/transactions/etc.. that I want students to know about. Maybe AI can help with that, but I'm skeptical.
