Bite-Sized Business Law

Effective regulation is essential for cryptocurrency to develop successfully! Today, we are joined by New York State’s first Superintendent of Financial Services and the CEO of the Lawsky Group, Benjamin Lawsky, to discuss how the regulatory landscape has evolved since the early days of crypto and where he sees Bitcoin heading next. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about Benjamin’s interesting career, how it led him to where he is today, his initial reaction to the concept of the BitLicense, how the regulations were written, and more. We delve into what the BitLicense is and why it’s important before discussing state versus federal regulation and how regulation has become more challenging over time. Benjamin even tells us how he keeps up with an industry that evolves so quickly. Finally, our guest tells us how he sees crypto evolving in the near future. To hear all this and be inspired to always say yes in the early stages of your career, be sure to press play now!Key Points From This Episode:An introduction to today’s guest, Benjamin Lawsky, and an overview of his career. He tells us what he was doing when the idea of a BitLicense arose and his involvement. What the BitLicense is, what it does, and the process of writing the regulations. How the stakes have risen for regulation over time, and state vs. federal regulation. Benjamin explains how he bridges the expertise void in crypto as a regulator. Why he loves working with students and the power of always saying yes. How Benjamin sees cryptocurrency evolving in the near future. He shares his advice for young lawyers who are interested in this space. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Benjamin Lawsky on LinkedInBenjamin Lawsky in XThe Lawsky GroupNYDIGAmelia Martella on LinkedInFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

What does it actually look like when law students become the primary lawyers for real-world startups and mission-driven businesses? In this episode, host Amelia Martella goes behind the scenes of the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic at Fordham Law School to explore how experiential learning prepares students for high-stakes corporate practice while serving New York’s entrepreneurial community. Amelia sits down with Professor Katherine Hughes, director of the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic, and clinic students Kathryn Berman and Liam Keane, who are all currently working with real founders on real legal problems. Together, they delve into what a law clinic is, how the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic differs from traditional litigation-focused offerings, and how corporate and transactional work can be leveraged as a powerful pro bono tool to support low-income and mission-driven organizations. They also explore real-world examples, common startup pitfalls, how the clinic manages client expectations, and Professor Hughes’ approach to supervising students. Join the conversation to hear how the Entrepreneurial Law Clinic is shaping future big-law associates and expanding access to legal support for small businesses. Tune in now!Key Points From This Episode:Discover what a law clinic is and how it supports the entrepreneurial community. The Entrepreneurial Law Clinic (ELC) at Fordham and what sets it apart from other clinics. Kathryn and Liam share what drew them to the ELC and how the experience is structured. Example of how the ELC is helping an entrepreneur to overcome the typical startup pitfalls.Hear about the common challenges and hurdles of working with entrepreneurs and startups.Learn about the expected time horizons and how transitioning students is handled. Professor Hughes’ approach to teaching students and working with entrepreneurs.How clients are selected and vetted through cold emails, legal services, and incubators.What Professor Hughes finds most rewarding about her pro-bono work and corporate law. Find out what motivates Professor Hughes and how students benefit from law clinics. Kathryn and Liam’s biggest takeaways from their time working with Professor Hughes.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Katherine Hughes on LinkedInKathryn Berman on LinkedInLiam Keane on LinkedInLincoln Square Legal Services Inc.Fordham University | Entrepreneurial Law Clinic (ELC)FrameShareCommunitas VenturesAmelia Martella on LinkedInFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

The rise and fall of FTX remains one of the most shocking financial scandals in modern history, and the story is far from over. In this special live episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, host Amy Martella moderates a discussion on FTX, fraud, and the fight for redemption, examining what Sam Bankman-Fried’s ongoing appeal could mean for his legacy and for crypto itself. Joining the panel are Richard Squire, Fordham Law professor and bankruptcy expert; Jennifer Taub, Wayne State Law professor and author on white-collar crime; and Jonathan Jones, Emmy Award-winning investigative journalist with The Center for Investigative Reporting. Together, they revisit how a single tweet triggered FTX’s collapse, the governance failures that let it happen, and the overlapping bankruptcy and criminal cases that followed. The panel then unpacks Bankman-Fried’s appeal, including claims of judicial bias, mishandled evidence, and a defense arguing he acted in good faith, believing no one would lose money in the long term. Closing with lessons for investors, lawyers, and regulators alike, the conversation explores whether redemption is possible when trust and billions of dollars have been “lost.” Tune in for a sharp, timely look at the legal and moral fallout of the FTX saga.Key Points From This Episode:Jonathan’s reporting on Bankman-Fried and what prompted his investigations.How and why FTX entered bankruptcy under the guidance of Sullivan & Cromwell.An outline of Bankman-Fried’s indictment, trial, and 25-year sentence.Understanding the overlap between FTX’s bankruptcy and criminal case.How to distinguish ordinary Chapter 11 filings from bankruptcies spurred by criminal activity.Details of Bankman-Fried’s appeal, including claims of judicial bias and excluded evidence.Unpacking whether prosecutors moved too fast before bankruptcy losses were known.A breakdown of the “good faith” defense: Bankman-Fried’s claim he meant no harm.Examining Sullivan & Cromwell’s dual role at FTX and potential conflicts of interest.Debating whether this could have been a governance scandal rather than criminal fraud.Crypto asset valuations and repayment timing in a bankruptcy case.The costs of bankruptcy and who profits when companies collapse.Lessons from FTX: buyer beware, demand oversight, and don’t invest based on the vibe.Audience Q&A: exploring political influence and crypto’s regulatory future.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Richard SquireRichard Squire on LinkedInJonathan JonesJonathan Jones on LinkedInJennifer TaubJennifer Taub at Wayne State LawJennifer Taub on LinkedIn‘FTX’d: Conflicting Public and Private Interests in Chapter 11’The Dual StateThe Secret Story of FTX's Rise and Ruin Part I, Reveal PodcastThe Secret Story of FTX's Rise and Ruin, Part IIAmelia Martella on LinkedIn

Should we still be referring to corporate directors and officers as fiduciaries? During this episode, we challenge one of the bedrock assumptions of corporate law: that corporate officers and directors act as fiduciaries. Turns out they don’t, according to today’s guest. Their decisions, protected by the business judgment rule, made with limited liability and free to contract around, reflect something closer to discretion than duty. Marc Steinberg, the Rupert and Lilian Radford Chair in Law at SMU Dedman School of Law, proposes replacing the term “corporate fiduciaries” with “corporate discretionaries.” Why does it matter? Marc’s new book, Discretionaries Not Fiduciaries, explains why and shares a wealth of knowledge about the relationship between labels and standards in our legal system today. Key Points From This Episode:What inspired Marc to write his latest book, published with Oxford University Press.The history of the term “fiduciary” and why director standards have become so relaxed. How exculpation statutes were born and what they necessitate.Why a higher degree of misconduct is required to hold a director liable for gross negligence than to convict someone of criminal negligence in Delaware. What led Marc to start using the word ‘discretionaries’ and how he hopes it will be used.The implications of this label shift.Why the current legislation is so permissive and why this is a problem.How the SB21 saga has reinforced his views.The business judgment rule and the neutrality of AI board members.Other examples of where we are mislabeling concepts in the law.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Marc SteinbergMarc Steinberg on LinkedInMarc Steinberg Google ScholarCorporate Director and Officer LiabilityRethinking Securities LawAmerican Book FestMarc Steinberg BooksFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Challenging the long-established bedrock of U.S. financial regulation, a proposed rule change to shift public companies from mandatory quarterly reporting to a semiannual schedule has reignited a critical debate over corporate efficiency, investor demands, and the core philosophy of corporate governance. Is this the end of quarterly reporting? Joining host Amy Martella once again is James (Jim) Park, professor of law and the director of community quality and justice at UCLA Law School. In his previous appearance, they discussed his book The Valuation Treadmill. Today, he returns to share insights on President Trump’s suggestion to shift away from quarterly reporting and what it means for corporate America. He unpacks the SEC rules that mandate reporting, breaks down the proposal—including how President Trump came to support it—and explores the key arguments from its supporters. They also discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks, why the SEC should consider retail investors’ perspectives, and how reporting practices in other countries compare to the U.S. For more on the shift away from quarterly reporting, including whether moving from four reports to two is truly significant, and Jim’s take on what the Trump administration might gain, be sure to listen in!Key Points From This Episode:Jim unpacks quarterly reporting and the rule and/or regulation that requires it.Breaking down quarterly reports: earnings, projections, and forecasts.Jim’s insights on what changed the appetite for annual reporting.The ins and outs of President Trump's new proposal and how he got the idea.Proposal supporters and the argument for why it should go through.Potential benefits to investors under a reduced reporting model.The drawbacks and challenges critics are highlighting. Jim’s thoughts on why the SEC should consider listening to retail investor arguments.Is the move from four to two times a year really that meaningful?How other countries handle reporting: transparency, information, and stakeholders.What’s in it, politically, for the Trump administration: reducing the role of government with respect to regulation.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:James (Jim) Park on LinkedInThe Valuation TreadmillU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)Paul AtkinsPresident Donald J. Trump on XSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Amelia Martella on LinkedInFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Index funds may seem like a no-brainer today, but they were once dismissed as boring and even reckless. In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, host Amy Martella is joined by Robin Wigglesworth, global financial correspondent for the Financial Times, where he serves as the editor of Alphaville, and author of Trillions, to trace the unlikely rise of passive investing and what its future holds. Robin recounts how renegade academics and innovators built the first index funds, challenged Wall Street orthodoxy, and sparked a quiet revolution that democratized investing. He brings to life colorful characters like Jack Bogle and Mac McQuown, whose stubborn determination made indexing mainstream. The conversation then turns to today’s challenges, from the explosion of ETFs to the concentration of corporate power among the “Big Three” asset managers. Robin also shares his views on ESG, shareholder activism, and the risks of over-financialization. He offers a preview of his upcoming book, The Greatest Show on Earth, which explores the overlooked but powerful history of the bond market. Listen in for a fascinating journey through the past, present, and future of investing!Key Points From This Episode:Some background on Robin and how he became a financial reporter.Why he wrote Trillions and how index funds became “the water” of investing.The first index funds and the academics who proved that active managers underperform.How figures like Mac McQuown and Jack Bogle made indexing mainstream.The role of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco in the indexing story.Personal reflections on Jack Bogle: his drive, and his complicated legacy.Today’s indexing challenges: ETF proliferation and the blurred line between active and passive.Concerns about power concentration among Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street.The debate over ESG, shareholder activism, and symbolic divestment.Why index funds still beat most active managers in the long run.Human nature and why many investors still choose active management.An overview of Warren Buffett and his lasting legacy.Robin’s thoughts on AI, systematic strategies, and the future of markets.A sneak peek at Robin’s next book, The Greatest Show on Earth, on the 1,000-year history of the bond market.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Robin WigglesworthRobin Wigglesworth on LinkedInTrillionsThe Greatest Show on EarthFinancial Times | AlphavilleFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

If you thought $56 billion was a big payday for Elon Musk, you won’t believe the new proposal: $1 trillion. What does that type of incentive package even look like and how will shareholders and the public react to the largest CEO payday in history? Ann Lipton, Laurence W. DeMuth Chair of Business Law at the University of Colorado Law School, breaks down Tesla’s unprecedented $1 trillion pay package, starting with the backstory of Musk’s 2018 $56 billion compensation plan, the Delaware litigation that rescinded it, and the board’s recent move to grant him 96 million shares as a hedge against losing on appeal. We then turn to the new $1 trillion incentive plan, which ties Musk’s payout to ambitious milestones, from doubling Tesla’s market cap to delivering 20 million vehicles, selling millions of robotaxis, and expanding full self-driving subscriptions. We explore shareholder approval dynamics, board independence questions, and why the plan is designed to guarantee Musk 25% voting power. Learn how this landmark deal could transform Tesla and set new precedents for executive pay across all American corporations.Key Points From This Episode:Musk’s 2018 $56B compensation plan, why it was struck down in Delaware, and where it currently stands.The board’s decision to grant Musk 96 million shares in case he loses the Delaware Supreme Court appeal.How Texas law makes shareholder lawsuits against Tesla nearly impossible.Tesla’s new $1 trillion, 10-year incentive plan and the milestones tied to Musk’s payout.Why reaching milestones early matters for Musk, as early wins allow shares to vest sooner.The plan’s lack of requirements for Musk’s time commitment, despite his other ventures.How the board is using financial incentives to keep Musk focused on Tesla.Why shareholder approval is expected to pass and how it could give Musk 25% voting power.Questions raised about board independence and the special committee’s role.The consequences of Tesla’s reliance on Musk’s vision to sustain its market value.Key financial and tax advantages for Tesla if they win in Delaware.Details of the Delaware Supreme Court oral arguments scheduled for October via livestream.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Ann LiptonAnn Lipton on LinkedInAnn Lipton on BlueskyAnn Lipton BlogShareholder Primacy PodcastDelaware Judicial Courts | Live StreamFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

It’s been 15 years since the Dodd-Frank Act reshaped financial regulation in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Among its most impactful legacies are its whistleblower protections.  Joining us to explore this topic is Dave Jochnowitz, a Partner at Outten & Golden and the Co-Chair of the firm’s Whistleblower and Retaliation Practice group. He is a frequent writer, speaker, and contributor to the Whistleblower community. During this conversation, we trace the evolution of whistleblower laws from early protections to the False Claims Act, the Dodd-Frank SCC Whistleblower program, and examine how legal safeguards have expanded and been challenged over time. We also discuss what the future may hold for whistleblowers under this administration’s shifting political priorities. Join us as we dissect the history, current realities, and future of whistleblowing and retaliation, with a focus on how those who speak up continue to be protected.Key Points From This Episode:An introduction to how the Dodd-Frank Act reshaped financial regulation and its enduring legacies.Partner at Outten & Golden, Dave Jochnowitz, speaks to his history with the whistleblower community. Where whistleblowing deviates from employment law.The industries where whistleblowing is most prevalent.Whistleblowing and whistleblower protection history in the United States and beyond.How the SEC Whistleblower program took a different approach and why this was beneficial.Legal requirements for tips. Why there is omnipartisan support for whistleblowing.Thoughts on DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni’s misconduct.The difference between whistleblowing and promoting a culture of suspicion. How the District Court distinguishes between when the government intervenes and when it does not. Whistleblowing and retaliation in the age of AI. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Dave Jochnowitz on LinkedInOutten & Golden on LinkedInOutten & GoldenFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Should profit be part of the calculation in developing safe AI? The future of artificial general intelligence (“AGI”) hinges on how well we balance innovation with safety. In this episode, Tyler Whitmer, founder, president, and CEO of Legal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology (LASST), talks about his work to protect OpenAI’s original mission to ensure AGI is safe and benefits all of humanity. Drawing on his background as a commercial litigator and nonprofit leader, Tyler explains why OpenAI’s unique corporate structure was designed to safeguard against profit motives and how a proposed restructuring could weaken those protections. He outlines the legal and ethical risks of shifting control away from the nonprofit, the coalition effort that led to an open letter to California and Delaware attorneys general, and what changes are still needed to keep mission ahead of money. The conversation also explores broader concerns about the democratization of harmful technologies, the role of legal advocacy in tech safety, and advice for lawyers who want to work in this critical space. Listen in for a timely look at the intersection between law, technology, and the public interest!Key Points From This Episode:Tyler’s path from partner at Quinn Emanuel to nonprofit AI safety advocate.The founding of LASST to address potential catastrophic tech risks through legal advocacy.How LASST uses litigation tracking and amicus briefs to influence court decisions.OpenAI’s charitable mission as a 501(c)(3) to ensure AGI is safe and benefits all of humanity.An outline of the concerns over OpenAI’s shift from mission-focused to profit-driven goals.What makes OpenAI’s original nonprofit-over-for-profit structure so unique.Details of the proposed restructuring and its potential mission risks.A breakdown of the open letter urging AGs to protect OpenAI’s charitable mission.Unpacking legal concerns for restructuring under California law and Delaware fiduciary duty.How OpenAI has revised its plans and the remaining questions on control and safeguards.Risks of removing investor return caps, including weakening mission enforceability.Tyler’s optimism about AI’s benefits, alongside concerns over its potential for grave harm.Advice for young lawyers entering the evolving AI and legal landscape.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Tyler WhitmerTyler Whitmer on LinkedInLegal Advocates for Safe Science and Technology (LASST)EncodeEncode Amicus Brief'Not for Private Gain: An Open Letter to OpenAI' | April 2025'Not for Private Gain: An Open Letter to OpenAI Update' | May 2025Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

What happens when a high-stakes legal case collides with tragedy, headlines, and the film industry? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, Melina Spadone, General Counsel at Thomasville Pictures and lead counsel for the Alec Baldwin film Rust, shares how she was unexpectedly thrust into one of the most publicized lawsuits in recent memory following the accidental on-set shooting that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and sparked national outrage. From managing fractured legal teams and negotiating settlements to handling crisis PR and even editing the film’s trailer, Melina recounts how her unconventional career path and ability to navigate complexity positioned her to lead with strategy and empathy. She reflects on the power of being underestimated, the value of trusting her instincts, and the unexpected ways that her background (from M&A law to parenting) prepared her for the moment. Tune in to find out how creative thinking, empathy, and fearless leadership helped navigate one of the most sensitive lawsuits in Hollywood, and why Melina believes every twist in her unconventional career led her exactly where she was meant to be!Key Points From This Episode:How Melina’s eclectic law school experience shaped her career philosophy.The case for being a jack of all trades and embracing unpredictability.Insight into the unexpected way Melina became lead counsel on the Rust case.Strategic leadership across litigation, OSHA, insurance, and PR in a crisis.Treating a movie as a distressed asset in legal negotiations.Honoring Halyna Hutchins through movie completion and awards consideration.Ways that Melina’s varied career experience and personal background prepared her for this case.Why being underestimated is a secret weapon.Lessons in self-trust, advocacy, and client-centered lawyering.Beyond the headlines: financing and completing Rust post-settlement.Thoughts on Trump’s proposed film tariffs.How AI and cost are shaping the future of independent film.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Melina SpadoneThomasville PicturesRust TrailerRust on Amazon PrimeRust on Apple TVRoom to GrowThe Metropolitan OperaFordham FolliesFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center