MENU

Corporate Law

The Short-Termism Debate - Event Video

2014 National Lawyers Convention
Lucian Bebchuk, Jonathan R. Macey, Robert T. Miller, Steven A. Rosenblum, E. Norman Veasey November 14, 2014

For thirty years, the economic analysis of corporate law has been based on the assumption that shareholder value is a reliable proxy for social welfare.  However, for some time now, the large majority of the shares in some public companies have been held by institutional investors, including pension funds and mutual funds.  These investors have some incentive to favor short-term profits at the expense longer-term benefits.  Can shareholder value still be reliably equated with social welfare?  Or does the current incentive structure encourage the misallocation of resources and a net social loss?

The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Groups presented this panel on "The Short-Termism Debate" on Thursday, November 13, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Lucian A. Bebchuk, William J. Friedman and Alicia Townsend Friedman Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance and Director of the Program on Corporate Governance, Harvard Law School
  • Prof. Jonathan R. Macey, Sam Harris Professor of Corporate Law, Corporate Finance, and Securities Law, Yale Law School
  • Prof. Robert T. Miller, Professor of Law and F. Arnold Daum Fellow in Corporate Law, University of Iowa College of Law
  • Mr. Steven A. Rosenblum, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
  • Moderator: Hon. E. Norman Veasey, Former Chief Justice, Delaware Supreme Court

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Fraud on the Market: Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund Decided - Podcast

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust and Litigation Practice Groups Podcast
George T. Conway III July 17, 2014

On Monday, June 23, 2014 the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision in the highly anticipated securities fraud case Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund. The case offered the Court an opportunity to revisit its 1988 decision in Basic v. Levinson, in which it adopted the “fraud on the market” doctrine. Fraud on the market is critical to modern securities fraud class action lawsuits -- the doctrine assumes that any misrepresentations of a security traded in an efficient market will affect that security’s market price and thus affect any shareholders trading in reliance of market price, an assumption that precludes consideration of whether potential class members actually heard and acted on fraudulent statements. The Court declined to overturn Basic; our expert discussed the reasoning and impact of the decision.

  • George T. Conway III, Partner, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz