American Business Law Journal最新文献

Law and strategy (LAS)—the study of the law's role in competitive advantage—has developed rapidly and with substantial promise for over 20 years. However, at this critical juncture in its development, the LAS literature lacks both a systematic review of its impact and an organized call for future research. To fill this scholarly gap, this article reports two citation analysis studies that identify the overall impact of the literature as well as the specific influence of seminal articles in the field. We find that LAS is widely cited, has a substantial and diverse disciplinary reach, and, crucially, that the influence of its seminal works has not faded over time. Building on these findings, we recommend pathways for future LAS research, including more cross-disciplinary scholarship, a closer engagement with the related stream of proactive law, a deeper inquiry into ethics, more systematic theory-building and empirical work, and a global perspective that tests the boundaries of LAS beyond fully developed markets. We conclude that LAS has a promising future with the potential for a wide range of applications that address significant challenges facing law and business.

Should a court ever second-guess a contract, ignoring what the parties said and imposing something different? Contractual purists insist that the answer is no. But the messy nature of reality counsels otherwise. We have long appreciated that creating a “complete” contract, one that efficiently treats every potentially relevant contingency, is impossible. In particular, systematic risks that affect the entire economy fall beyond contract's realistic reach. When such events occur, they upset contractual frameworks, leaving parties shackled with obligations suited to a world that never came to be. At least in that context, second-guessing is vital. And that second-guessing can be understood according to a concept called anticontract. When systematic risks fundamentally upend contractual frameworks, this inversion of contract's basic principles paradoxically fulfills contract's goals. Anticontract does the opposite of all that contract law does: it adjusts rather than enforces; it looks ex post rather than ex ante; it prioritizes the public rather than the parties; and it provides no general rules, only particular results. It operates, in short, irregularly rather than regularly. In the face of realized systematic risks, anticontract thus paradoxically fulfills contract's goals by doing contract's opposite. In so doing, it redistributes losses to those most able to bear them at the microlevel, curing macroeconomic ills at their source. In essence, it creates social insurance for systematic risks that private contract cannot manage. In all this, anticontract can be understood as an instance of a broader phenomenon, the completion of law through equity. Anticontract thus represents an important way to understand the limits of contract and when to violate the principles of contract law.

Much like traditional credit scoring, decentralized credit scoring calculates a borrower's creditworthiness, but the fully automated process is executed on the blockchain by Decentralized Finance (DeFi) platforms. Originally, DeFi emerged as an alternative to the centralized traditional finance (TradFi) system; however, decentralized credit scoring combines DeFi data and traditional data that include a wide range of information sources, from traditional credit reports to social media information. Despite their fairness-oriented narrative, an examination of the business models of the protocols and entities operating in this space reveals that these hybrid scores are subject to the same algorithmic distortions that have been observed in traditional and alternative credit scoring models. Moreover, decentralized credit scores present their own distinctive set of fairness issues. Particularly, both upgrade to smart contracts and their reliance on external algorithms, known as oracles, which feed outside data, introduce heightened potential for error and bias in the credit scoring process. These “black box 3.0” issues can result in opaque automation of biased processes and perpetuate social injustices, requiring regulatory intervention to strengthen the linkage points between DeFi and TradFi and better protect consumers from the black box 3.0 consequences of decentralized credit scores.

Amid the surge of intellectual property (IP) disputes surrounding non-fungible tokens (NFTs), some scholars have advocated for the application of personal property or sales law to regulate NFT minting and transactions, contending that IP laws unduly hinder the development of the NFT market. This Article counters these proposals and argues that the existing IP system stands as the most suitable regulatory framework for governing the evolving NFT market. Compared to personal property or sales law, IP laws can more effectively address challenges such as tragedies of the commons and anticommons in the NFT market. NFT communities have also developed their own norms and licensing agreements upon existing IP laws to regulate shared resources. Moreover, the IP regimes, with both static and dynamic institutional designs, can effectively balance various policy concerns, such as innovation, fair competition, and consumer protection, which alternative proposals struggle to provide.

Mutual fund disclosures must include information about a fund's strategies and risks to comply with the letter of the law. But funds should also honor the spirit of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations, including informing ordinary investors. Disclosure language creates impressions that can be just as important as the content. But evaluating these soft aspects of disclosures is hard. In this article, we propose using disclosure tone—how positive or negative the language is—to empirically capture these impressions. This measure provides an additional tool to assess compliance with the spirit of disclosure laws. Building on finance research on company disclosures, we develop customized dictionaries specific to mutual fund disclosures. We then introduce a novel sentiment-scoring framework that generates transparent sentence- and disclosure-level scores for our sample of 164,602 mutual fund summary prospectuses (497k) from 2010 to 2020. Our descriptive analysis validates our dictionary by showing meaningful and statistically significant differences across disclosure sections, fund type, and time. Funds' statements of their principal risks are more negative (and uniformly so) across time than funds' descriptions of their investment strategies. We further explore these relationships using a fixed-effects regression model. These analyses reveal statistically significant relationships between mutual fund disclosure tone and fund attributes, performance, and disclosure characteristics. These relationships are consistent with SEC requirements that anchor risk discussions in more negative language than strategy discussions. The findings also highlight the role of legal language in setting the overall disclosure tone. Our context-sensitive approach provides a path to regulate compliance more effectively with both the letter and the spirit of the law. Our framework, which we have made publicly available, provides a robust tool to allow researchers and regulators to assess not only what funds say, but how they say it.

In an unsustainable trend, each year is touted as the worst on record for data and system breaches. 2020's dubious top distinction was exceeded across numerous metrics in 2021, and 2022's numbers set another unwanted record. The growing epidemic of ransomware, data breaches, and cyber-enabled attacks pushes policymakers and business leaders to consider what can be done to reverse the cyber-insecurity spiral. Amidst the current cybersecurity landscape fraught with regulatory gaps, dependence on self-regulation, and resource constraints of small- and medium-sized businesses, policymakers should seize opportunities to reward reasonable cybersecurity postures and disincentivize underinvestment in cybersecurity best practices. Bold and coordinated actions are needed to dislodge the unsustainable trend of increasingly damaging cyberattacks, and to create a more holistically secure digital future. To move the needle toward a more robust cybersecurity ecosystem, this article proposes an incentive-based strategy that breaks the mandate-versus-self-regulation dichotomy, leveraging a carrots and sticks tax approach to spur stronger cybersecurity postures across the ecosystem. Such proposal outlines a framework for a Federal Cybersecurity Investment Tax Credit, tailored and mapped to select entity types, combined with a cyberinsecurity tax, thus promoting the principle that businesses have basic cybersecurity responsibilities and fundamental duties to operate securely in a digital society. In addition, this article introduces supplementary tools as part of an enhanced cybersecurity tax policy toolkit. Given pressing national and global cyber risks, this article continues a long-standing conversation about the operative use of tax policy as part of a holistic approach to reaching a secure and sustainable digital future.

Although policymakers have recently shown a keen interest in noncompete reform, a gap exists in the literature concerning what the U.S. public's preferences are regarding noncompetes. Therefore, this article presents the empirical findings of a nationally-representative survey of the American public on the noncompete law governing employees. Based on the results of a conjoint experiment within the survey, this article finds that the U.S public prefers that noncompetes be used to protect any types of confidential information, rather than simply customer lists or employee training investments. Additionally, the findings do not show clear support either for or against noncompete exemptions based on an employee's earnings level. However, this article finds that the U.S. public prefers a noncompete exemption for physicians, a shorter maximum duration for the noncompete period, and a legal mandate that departing employees subject to noncompetes receive some compensation from the employer during the noncompete period. Consequently, this article argues that employers should engage in greater self-regulation if they would like to mitigate the risk not only that legislators will respond to public sentiment favoring more employee-friendly policies by enacting a total or near-total ban on noncompetes, but also that judges will find the noncompetes to be unreasonable.

This article examines current and future trends in worker surveillance. It also examines the various, though minimal, legal protections workers have against extensive work-related monitoring. With no meaningful legal protections against excessive work-related surveillance, employees are arguably taking matters into their own hands by engaging in deviant behaviors that attempt to thwart surveillance efforts. Factoring in the ethical and managerial dimensions of a workforce under constant and excessive surveillance, this article examines a way forward for workers to engage in self-managed privacy, potentially leading to a less intrusive, but still productive, work environment.

Rapidly growing concerns about the adverse effects of climate change are prompting a re-thinking of how companies view their strategies and operations and spurring legal and regulatory responses around the world. The overarching objective of these efforts is to facilitate and accelerate the transition to a more sustainable economy. The green transition will have substantial distributional and structural implications for workers and the workplace across companies and economic sectors. Indeed, the future of work will be significantly shaped by climate change. However, relatively scant scholarly attention has been devoted to the forward-looking legal implications of climate change for work. Similarly, legal scholars writing on climate change have largely neglected the laws governing employment. This article seeks to help fill that gap. How can companies, workers, and society respond to the green transition in a manner that enables better jobs, a safe and stable workplace, and more resilient companies? To answer this question, this article draws on the theory of just transition, which is rooted in environmental justice and labor rights. We offer an interpretation and application of just transition that expands its scope to serve as a blueprint for ethical business conduct and legal reform to improve the world of work and the lives of workers.

This article presents evidence that patent value varies with random examiner assignment at the U.S. Patent Office. Prior work analyzed firm growth as a function of review by “easy” examiners who grant patents at a high rate. The current research looks past whether a patent is granted and instead focuses on how assignment to an “easy” or “hard” examiner influences the attributes of resultant patents. Focusing on their propensities to reject applications on novelty or obviousness grounds, analysis finds that patents issued by lenient examiners tend to be broader in scope, are more valuable to their owners, and elicit a larger stock market response when granted. Further analysis quantifies the level of variation (“noise”) among examiners. This inquiry finds that the noise level in issuing novelty rejections decreases with examiner experience, while variation among examiners issuing obviousness rejections actually increases with experience. A third line of investigation presents evidence that “stricter” examiners disproportionately reach the correct examination relative to more lenient counterparts. This conclusion is supported by “twin application” analysis comparing outcomes of related U.S. and European applications. Consistent with the literature using this method, the European Patent Office's outcome is considered the “gold standard” for examination, and thus, its decision to grant or deny is assumed correct.