Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food
Bainbridge fires back
My latest entry in the Point of Law debate between myself and my friend Gordon Smith has now been posted. We really ought to find a law review that wants to sponsor a longer version of this debate, with footnotes and all that good stuff.
Posted on Wednesday, September 13 2006 | Permalink
Dear Professor Bainbridge,
As I have devoted a significant part of the last three years exploring the shareholder empowerment debate, I very much enjoyed the debate on Point of Law.
As Editor of The Corporate Governance Law Review, I would be very interested in publishing a fully-referenced version of the debate in the January 2007 edition.
Look forward to hearing from you-
Posted by James McConvill on 09/14 at 06:33 PM
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Next entry: Is Online Dating Efficient?
Previous entry: Drum on Talking about the War
Introduction
- UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge's personal journal. Mostly commentary on politics, religion, and culture.
- Part of the ProfessorBainbridge.com family of blogs.
Recent Punditry Entries
- The NYT’s Floyd Norris Flubs Cuban Story
- Joe Lieberman: If I were a Dem
- Mark Cuban: Inside Trader?
- There is no joy in Redskinsville West
- Obama won the Cotton Belt
Hot Topics on Food & Wine
- Domaine de la Chevalerie (Bourgueil) 2005
- Louis M Martini Cabernet Sauvignon Monte Rosso Vineyard (Sonoma Valley) 2004*
- Antinori Ornellaia (Tuscany) 1990
- Degiorgis Sori del Re Moscato d’Asti NV
- Silver Oak as Phoenix
Hot Topics on Law & Business
- Federalist Society Program on the SEC and the Financial Crisis
- Stoneridge and the Supreme Court’s Dubious Track Record in Securities Cases
- Reflections on Two Decades in this Business
- The Insider Trading Charges Against Mark Cuban
- Corporate Law 2nd Edition
Flickr
Archives
My Books
Blogroll
- Althouse
- Amy Ridenour
- AtlanticBlog
- Beldar Blog
- Conglomerate Blog
- Crooked Timber
- Daniel Drezner
- Ernie The Attorney
- Evangelical Outpost
- Fool in the Forest
- Hugh Hewitt
- Ideoblog
- InstaPundit
- Jules Crittenden
- LA Observed
- Leiter Reports
- Less than the Least
- Maggie's Farm
- Marginal Revolution
- Mark Kleiman
- Mark Shea
- Megan McArdle
- Mirror of Justice
- Outside the Beltway
- Pejman Yousefzadeh
- PoliBlog
- Political Animal
- PrestoPundit
- Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter
- Scrivener's Error
- Stuart Buck
- The American Mind
- The Anchoress
- The Right Coast
- TigerHawk
- VodkaPundit
- Volokh Conspiracy
- Wizbang
- Yin Blog
This was a very interesting discussion, thank you for doing it. It reinforces my impression that legal academic discourse is largely competitive story telling, but this was competitive story telling on a very informative level
.
Having said that, the following statement of yours was both incorrect and a cheap shot:
“Consider Sarbanes-Oxley, the great triumph of corporate governance reformers.”
I don’t know a single serious corporate governance reformer who views SOx as a triumph, or even anything close to the best reform package that could have been done. There are some who think that on balance SOx may have done more good than bad (I am not one of them), but nobody seems to view it as anything better than a mediocre compromise.