Ipse Dixit

In this episode, Sharon Yadin, Associate Professor of Law at the Peres Academic Center School of Law and a member of the Israel Press Council, discuses her article, "Regulatory Shaming" in Environmental Law, and her two successive articles on regulatory shaming, "Saving Lives Through Shaming" in the Harvard Business Law Review Online and "Shaming Big Pharma" in the Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin. Yadin begins by defining regulation and regulatory shaming, and details how regulatory agencies can use shaming techniques to enforce legal and social norms against corporations. She details how shaming techniques should be used and how they should be structured, noting the positives and negatives of regulatory shaming. And she concludes by discussing how policymakers, the public, and corporations should react to regulatory shaming. Yadin is on Twitter at @Sharon_Yadin.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Akshaya Kamalnath, ​incoming Lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology School of Law, discusses her article, "Corporate Insolvency Resolution Law in India – A Proposal to Overcome the ‘Initiation Problem’" forthcoming in the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review. She begins by discussing the history of India's corporate insolvency law, explaining how the experience of the Sick Industrial Companies Act of 1985 and the collection of statutes that regulated insolvency of limited liability corporations led to a distrust in the Debtor in Possession Model for bankruptcy. She then outlines the new law regulating corporate insolvency, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which transformed restructuring into a creditor-focused model and created a new efficient structure of initiating the insolvency process. However, she explains that the creditor-focused model of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has led to a reticence on the part of corporations to initiate the process prescribed in law, as company directors often lose control of corporations to creditors.

Kamalnath notes that this 'initiation problem' is due to the structure of many Indian companies, which are owned by family groups whose promoters that raised money during the corporation's establishment continue on to leadership positions within the organization. She notes that these promoters have few incentives to lose control of their companies, and are often part of larger groups that have great influence on the financial, governmental, and business sectors. As a solution to this problem, Kamalnath looks to the corporate law of Australia and the United States, finding that Australian corporate law has the alternate problem of excessive incentives for managers to enter the insolvency process. She finds a better model in American corporate law, proposing a "modified Revlon duty" upon managers to accept the highest offer for a company when soliciting bids in the pre-insolvency phase, regardless of organizational changes demanded by bidding firms. And she concludes that the Indian parliament has proven itself willing to amend gaps in corporate law, suggesting that future legislation could insert the "modified Revlon duty" into existing law regulating the duties of directors. Kamalnath is on Twitter at @Akamalnath.

This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Marie-Amélie George, Assistant Professor of Law at Wake Forest University School of Law discusses her article Framing Trans Rights. George traces how campaigns for LGBT rights have changed over time and the ways in which strategies that have succeeded at the ballot box do not always capture the full diversity of the Trans community. Her paper is forthcoming in the Northwestern University Law Review. She explores what this means for protecting LGBT rights in an enduring and comprehensive way. George is on Twitter at @ProfMAGeorge.

This episode was hosted by Benjamin Edwards, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law. Edwards is on Twitter at @BenPEdwards.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law at the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, discusses her article, "First Amendment Categories of Harm," which will be published in the Indiana Law Journal. Barclay begins by explaining how and why theories of harm can affect the legitimacy of government action. She describes how courts have historically thought about categories of harm in relation to religious liberties and exemptions, and identifies several different theories of harm that legal scholars have recently proposed in that context. She explains why those theories may produce undesirable outcomes, and provides a taxonomy of harms that reflects how courts have weighed competing harms in context. And she reflects on how that taxonomy can help clarify the normative values at stake and encourage compromise. Barclay is on Twitter at @shbarclay.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Ann M. Lipton, the Michael Fleishman Associate Professor in Corporate Law & Entrepreneurship at Tulane University Law School discusses her article Not Everything Is About Investors: The Case For Mandatory Stakeholder Disclosure. Lipton makes the case for a stakeholder-focused disclosure system to bring information of public concern to the public. She explains how our investor-focused disclosure system under the securities laws is not well-suited to meet the public’s need for information. Lipton's scholarship is available on SSRN, and she is on Twitter at @AnnMLipton.

This episode was hosted by Benjamin Edwards, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Nevada Las Vegas William S. Boyd School of Law. Edwards is on Twitter at @BenPEdwards.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Cynthia Godsoe, Associate Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School, discusses her 2017 article "Recasting Vagueness: The Case of Teen Sex Statutes," which was published in the Washington and Lee Law Review. Prof. Godsoe begins by orienting the listener to the concept of “vaguenets,” broadly written laws punishing common and largely harmless conduct. She then discusses the history and structure of juvenile courts in the United States and how they establish a system parallel to the adult criminal justice system that is, arguably, even more punitive. Professor Godsoe then discusses how employment of the vagueness doctrine can not only limit “vaguenets” such as teen sex statutes, but also be used to institute wider criminal justice reform. She concludes by giving a preview of her next related project, examining vagueness in the context of the child welfare and dependency system, to be co-authored with Carissa Hessick. Professor Godsoe is on Twitter at @cynthia_godsoe.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Assistant Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Professor Romero is on Twitter at @maybellromero.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Mala Chatterjee, a JD/PhD student in philosophy at New York University, fellow at the NYU Law School Engelberg Center for Innovation, Law, and Policy, and visiting fellow at the Yale Law School Information Society Project, discusses her article "Minds, Machines, and the Law: The Case of Volition in Copyright Law," which she co-authored with Jeanne Fromer of NYU Law, and which will be published in the Columbia Law Review. Chatterjee begins by explaining why mental states and the concept of volition matter in the law. She describes the role of volition in copyright law, and how the presence of absence of volition may affect the culpability of an action under copyright law. She outlines how philosophers of mind distinguish between conscious and functional mental states, and how thinking about mental states functionally may affect our understanding of how to treat the actions of machines under copyright law. And she reflects on how thinking about mental states and volition from a functional perspective may affect how we think about legal doctrine more generally. Chatterjee is on Twitter at @nirrvala.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Andy Grewal, Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law, discusses his article "The President's Tax Returns." Grewal begins by describing his scholarship on Congress's authority to review individual tax return, and his conclusion that Congress should be able to review tax returns only when it has a legitimate legislative purpose. He describes the efforts of House Democrats to obtain President Trump's tax returns, and evaluates their claims in relation to both their statutory authority and the legitimacy of their stated purposes. He reviews the history of disclosure of tax returns and the IRS's formal treatment of the President's tax return. He considers potential obstacles to forcing President Trump to release his tax returns. And he reflects on the appropriateness of legislative requests to review individual tax returns. Grewal is on Twitter at @AndyGrewal.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode, Stephanie Plamondon Bair, Associate Professor of Law at the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School, discusses her new article Impoverished IP. She argues that recent debates about using intellectual property systems, especially patent and copyright, as a means for economically empowering those in poverty miss an important mark. In her article, Professor Bair discusses findings from psychology and neuroscience about the cognitive burdens that poverty imposes on decision making and creativity. She concludes that these burdens are an underappreciated obstacle to meaningful participation in the creative process, and identifies policy interventions that more directly promote values of distributive justice. Professor Bair’s article is available on SSRN.

This episode was hosted by Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Associate Professor in the School of Law and Associate Professor in the Dwight Look College of Engineering at the Texas A&M University. Professor Vishnubhakat is on Twitter at @emptydoors.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.