Jones v. Harris in person
For a final post on Jones v. Harris (not in conjunction with last week's Forum but with my guest visit, which ends soon), I’ll close with a few observations from my visit to the oral argument last Monday. At 7:30 a.m. on Monday, the line for members of the Supreme Court bar was longer than the public queue and filled with lawyers who regularly represent both the plaintiffs and the defendants in these kinds of lawsuits.  The plaintiffs’ bar seemed to be hungrier, having won places at the front of the line, but their adversaries further back were wearing many more Hermes ties. The degree of security w

In Berle's Footsteps
Chuck O'Kelley has assembled a fascinating group of scholars to examine the legacy of Adolf A. Berle, Jr. at a conference called "In Berle's Footsteps." The conference prompted me to revisit The Modern Corporation and Private Property, which I first read in the mid-1990s upon entering legal academe. The book is full of profound insights, but one that jumped off the page on this reading is that the conventional account of the separation of ownership and control i

Will Sarbanes-Oxley Be A Casualty of the Financial Crisis?
Floyd Norris says yes, and I must say I'm surprised.  Despite the raft of academic criticism about Sarbanes-Oxley, it is hard to believe that a deregulatory measure would be a popular sell in Congress, though the column is worth a read on that score.  Prediction: if the momentum to revisit the statute is strong enough, it is unlikely that it would not be paired with some financial reform directed at this crisis.  In that sense, Sarbanes-Oxley has made a Consumer Financial Products Agency that much more likely.

Thank you, Masters!
On behalf of the Glom, I'd like to thank the Masters for making our first Forum such a success.  If you are interested in reading the collected posts on Jones v. Harris, you can find them here.  And keep an eye out for future Masters Fora at the Glom!

Judicial, Legislative, and Executive Responses to Jones v. Harris
With Jones v. Harris now submitted to the justices for their consideration, academics can fill the next few months of silence speculating about the eventual decision and the responses it may evoke.  Some commentators have already considered how trial courts might deal with a pro-plaintiff Gartenberg-plus standard and whether Congress would revisit a pro-defendant status quo ruling.  But not much time has been spent thinking about how the executive branch will respond. In fact, of all the considerable ink spilled reporting Monday’s oral arguments, comparatively little was spent on what may have been the