American Business Law Journal最新文献

Though the medical use of marijuana is legal in thirty-three states, it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Any marijuana use can subject individuals to severe criminal and civil penalties under federal law. States that condition patient access and treatment on registration in a state database impose real risks on their citizens. Although many scholars have written about the tension between federal and state treatment of marijuana, this is the first article to examine marijuana patient registry privacy and fundamental rights issues. This article first reviews the relationship between marijuana use and patient treatment, with a focus on health-care and privacy rights under state and federal law. The article then explains how marijuana registries compare to broader patient registries, such as contagious disease and other medical condition patient registries, and the unique issues presented by marijuana patient registries. It then discusses the elevated risk to constitutional, privacy, and fundamental rights that may result if states do not carefully construct marijuana registries. The article concludes by proposing principles for how both states and dispensaries should approach marijuana registries in order to provide health benefits and avoid harm to patients.

One of the most influential cases in corporate governance is In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation (Caremark). In 1996, Caremark imposed a novel duty on boards of directors to make a good faith attempt to implement and exercise oversight over obligations leading to liability. Breach of this minimal duty has been difficult for plaintiffs to plead and prove, and the case law is littered with dismissed Caremark lawsuits. As Caremark's reign reaches a quarter-century, however, its duties are primed to evolve. Two cases, Marchand v. Barnhill and In re Clovis Oncology, Inc. Derivative Litigation, took the rare step of allowing Caremark claims to survive motions to dismiss. These cases signal a new understanding of Caremark obligating boards not merely to attempt oversight, but to ensure proactively that such oversight is effective. This subtle but significant change in board duties is one to which the academic literature should respond. This article first reviews the Marchand and Clovis cases and argues that these cases hold significance for the future of Caremark claims. Second, this article studies client advisories from law firms and other sources that evaluate the Clovis and Marchand cases. It finds that while these advisories offer useful tactical responses, they lack strategic advice that would benefit boards over the long term. Filling the gap, this article presents long-term strategic advice for boards not only to meet Caremark duties but also to thrive as exemplars of good governance and ethical leadership for the next twenty-five years.

U.S. professional sports teams are increasingly relying on sophisticated forms of data analysis to identify potential areas of competitive advantage over their league rivals. Indeed, emerging evidence suggests that the most sophisticated teams in this area are using the insights that they derive from data analytics to establish durable and significant gains over their competition on the playing field. At the same time, sports franchises frequently utilize noncompete agreements to protect the resulting, proprietary information that their data analysis yields. Unfortunately, recent academic research suggests that this reliance on covenants not to compete can decrease the rate of knowledge diffusion within an industry, making it more difficult for teams to catch up to early adopters of data analytics. Thus, teams’ growing reliance on data analytics—and their use of noncompete agreements to protect their resulting findings—could have significant, but heretofore unrecognized, ramifications for league efforts to maintain an adequate level of competitive balance amongst their franchises. This article explores this state of affairs, as well as the implications it presents for the governance of U.S. professional sports leagues.

This article develops the concepts of regulatory legal strategy, a resource-based view of government agencies, and regulatory entrepreneurship. These ideas are explored through a case study of the limited (if any) access that legal cannabis-related businesses have to the banking system due to the clash between federal law and laws in those states that have legalized some uses of cannabis. This article argues that regulators’ entrepreneurial regulatory legal strategies can have a material impact on regulated entities and give them a competitive advantage. To demonstrate, this article claims that regulators’ adoption of permissive regulatory legal strategies has facilitated access of some cannabis-related businesses to the banking system. Conversely, if regulators adopted obstructive regulatory strategies, this would act as a constraint on such access in the future, even if Congress resolves the federalism issue largely responsible for the current limitations these businesses face.

This article explores cannabis regulation in Canada and the United States and examines how recent legalization efforts have manifested differently in each country. Although some of these differences are explained by uncompromising constitutional structures, this comparative exercise examines each system's political choices. While emphasis is placed on the Canadian experience, this article seeks to inform and enhance policy and regulation in both countries in addition to highlighting inherent ethical issues.

When Google went public with a dual-class capital structure in which shares owned by the founders confer greater voting rights than shares issued to public investors, its cofounders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, promised to provide investors with high-quality information about the company. Using the words of Warren Buffett, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, another dual-class firm, they promised shareholders, “We won’t ‘smooth’ quarterly or annual results: If earnings figures are lumpy when they reach headquarters, they will be lumpy when they reach you.” Page, Brin, and Buffett definitely understood the importance of quality information to their investors, especially in dual-class structures. But do dual-class companies really provide investors with credible financial information? Contrary to the assumption of agency theory that dual-class firms are less transparent, we find empirically that these companies do provide credible information to their investors. Our results suggest that the quality of financial reports, as measured by their ability to predict change in future earnings, is higher for dual-class companies than for their single-class counterparts. These findings may be explained by the unique relations created in dual-class firms in which the founders provide investors with higher-quality information in exchange for superior voting rights. The article contributes to the heated debate about the transparency of dual-class companies by providing policy makers with important insights on the quality of information provided by these companies. Our findings suggest that there is no need for stricter regulation with regard to disclosure of financial information by dual-class firms.

Organizations like 350.org, Insure Our Future, and DivestInvest are leading campaigns to urge boycott and divestment from fossil fuels as a means to address climate change. Increasingly, they are finding success, from individual consumers to massive pension and sovereign wealth funds. However, as organized group boycotts, divest campaigns may be vulnerable to prosecution under antitrust law. This article explores the likelihood of success in such a case, considering the history of the legal treatment of organized boycotts, the scope and purpose of antitrust law, and the possible application of the First Amendment to the divestment context. The article finds that fossil fuel boycotts straddle a number of contradictory characteristics, making application of existing theories inadequate. In particular, existing precedent protects political boycotts, but not those with primarily economic objectives, and fails to definitively address whether a noncompetitive actor may undertake concerted action under antitrust law. In the context of climate change, where the political is economic, and political goals may seek significant economic changes (such as undermining an entire industry), existing theories may lead to a result that threatens both free expression and the health of the planet. The essential flexibility of the Sherman Act, however, provides room for protection of political activity, even where the ultimate objective is economic in nature.

The field of law and strategy (LAS) has advanced our understanding of the law's role in competitive advantage. To date, however, LAS has neglected low rule of law environments—countries characterized by expansive degrees of legal uncertainty. LAS should account for these settings, too, since environmental uncertainty is a strategically significant factor for any company. This article situates the strategic relevance of legal uncertainty in the Chinese context and fills an important gap by illustrating how LAS principles apply in low rule of law jurisdictions. Specifically, this article develops the construct of legal entrepreneurship—the notion that attorneys may apply an entrepreneurial mind-set and skill set to position the client favorably and legitimately within the uncertainties of the legal landscape, thereby creating legal competitive advantages for the client. Drawing upon interviews with expert attorneys and executives, this article presents a typology of legal strategies available to U.S. companies in China, uniquely modeling these approaches along the two fundamental dimensions of legal strategy. Additionally, this article identifies two basic types of legal uncertainty in the cross-border context and offers guidelines for the exercise of legal entrepreneurship. Together, these arguments demonstrate that legal entrepreneurship is an empirically viable construct within the LAS project. In low rule of law jurisdictions that have embraced foreign enterprise, legal entrepreneurship will generally optimize the American company's pursuit of both legal value creation and legal risk management.