Bite-Sized Business Law

Climate disclosures are probably the most prominent ESG issues these days, and today’s episode is all about the SEC’s expansion into ESG disclosures and why this decision isn’t valid under the constitution, nor is it wise. Joining us to share his thoughts on the topic is Professor Sean Griffith, an expert in corporate and securities law who teaches at Fordham Law School and is the author of the paper entitled ‘What's controversial about ESG?’ Historically, the SEC has asked corporations to describe their assets, their management, and their corporate governance, but by getting into climate disclosure they are broaching a whole new territory, and by doing so they are opening themselves up to challenges to their authority. To read the full paper visit the link https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4118755This conversation is guaranteed to give you a lot to think about! Key Points From This Episode:The focus of Sean’s most recent piece, ‘What’s Controversial About ESG?’Sean shares what motivated him to write this piece.An overview of the SEC’s current climate proposals. The definition of materiality. Pre-existing rules that require companies to make climate-related disclosures.Where the SEC derives its authority to mandate disclosures. What most SEC regulations require of corporations. The role of the SEC.The two opposing camps of belief on the constitutionality of the SEC’s decisions. Exploring the Commercial Speech Doctrine. The key to winning a constitutional law case. Sean explains what makes the SEC’s ESG proposal so controversial.What all investors want. Ways by which institutional asset managers can rate investments for ESG investors. Three first amendment arguments around SEC regulations relating to climate disclosures. Why Sean thinks it is highly likely that the SEC’s rules in the ESG area won’t survive. What the SEC should and shouldn’t be doing. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Sean Griffith on LinkedIn‘What’s Controversial About ESG?’Climate RationalityFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

During this special episode, Richard Squire joins us to discuss the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. Richard is a Professor of law at Fordham University School of Law, where he teaches corporate, business, and bankruptcy law, and he is here today to provide an overview of what has happened at Silicon Valley Bank, and analyze the elements that have led to this point. Join us to hear his perspective on the Federal Reserve’s failures, the role of moral hazard, and how middle class tax is redistributed to the wealthy. We discuss fractional reserve banking, Dodd-Frank, and interest rates, before we theorize about what the world would look like without inflation from money printing. Hear why Richard doesn’t advocate for lifting the insurance cap on deposits, which program is working in tandem with deposits, and why deflation is undesirable for the Federal Reserve with money multiplication and division in mind. Join us today to hear all this and more from today’s highly knowledgeable guest. Thanks for tuning in!Key Points From This Episode:An introduction to today’s guest, Professor Richard Squire.Richard’s rundown on the bank run at Silicon Valley Bank.What Richard means by bad practices: a failure of risk management.The two main problems that caused the bank to fall into bankruptcy. How the social media component fueled the panic around this crisis.The Federal Reserve’s failure to monitor interest rates at Silicon Valley Bank.Moral hazard at various scales.The redistribution of middle class tax to the wealthy in Silicon Valley.The cost of money printing.Fractional reserve banking.How different our approach to banking would be without inflation from money printing.Where Dodd-Frank fell short in addressing risk.Why Richard doesn’t advocate for lifting the insurance cap on deposits.The program that is working in tandem with deposits.Why deflation is in conflict with what the Federal Reserve wants.Money multiplication and money division.The impact of having no risk officer at SVB.A note that the insurance limit has not been limited for other banks.Why there is global interest in the Federal Reserve’s interest rates.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Richard Squire on LinkedInSilicon Valley BankDodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection ActFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Financial litigation is a new sector causing disruption and creating new opportunities for law and finance, but what is financial litigation? What type of assets are involved? How can organizations take advantage of new opportunities? To help unpack this complicated topic is  Matt Cantor, Senior Managing Director at Pretium, a specialized investment firm with more than  $50 billion in assets under management. Matt is known for his handling of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and liquidation case. He has a wealth of experience in corporate restructuring at big law firms and has worked at various respected investment firms. In our conversation, we unpack the definition of litigation finance, how it relates to the justice system, and where finance litigation originated. We discuss how the shift in the economy has created new legal opportunities, his approach to selecting the best organizations to work with, how to monetize digital assets, how Matt remains objective during finance litigation processes, the ethical considerations, balancing risk and returns, and the value of intangible corporate assets. Hear about his experience working with Lehman Brothers, a practical example of litigation finance,  and Matt’s opinion on regulating the sector. Tune in and learn about the new world of litigation finance and the associated opportunities with Matt Cantor! Key Points From This Episode: Background about Matt and his vast experience in business law. Learn about Pretium and how he first got involved in litigation finance. What litigation finance is and how it helps with accessibility to the justice system. Hear how law firms are leveraging the shift in the economy and corporate assets. How organizations acquire funding for litigation and how many are awarded funding. His approach to selecting clients to work with and acquiring funding. Matt shares how he avoids ethical pitfalls and other challenges. Find out whether the historical return is higher with digital asset classes. Whether litigation finance is correlated or affected by capital markets. He explains how more than one litigation firm can work together on a case. We discuss whether regulation of the sector is inevitable. Ways in which financial litigation works in the context of bankruptcy.  Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Matt Cantor on LinkedInPretiumFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

The rise and fall of SPACs, or Special Purpose Acquisition Companies, is a trending topic in legal and financial conversations. Why were they so attractive, and what caused some to come grinding to a halt? Today we talk about what the heck happened to SPACs! Here with us on the Bite Sized Business Law Podcast is Maria Charon. She is a corporate lawyer who started her career at renowned Wall Street law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell. Most recently, Maria has been part of a SPAC management group. Maria talks us through what a SPAC is, why they’re seemingly attractive, and what a de-SPAC merger is. She shares specifics on how SPACs function, what investors can expect, and we speculate on the effects of pending regulations from the SEC. We discuss the similarities of the SPAC trend with other past trends like the dot-com bubble and the crypto-craze and the future of the SPAC market. For all this, and more, don’t miss this informative conversation with Maria Charon.Key Points From This Episode:A quick introduction to our guest, Maria Charon.A definition for ‘SPAC’ which can also be referred to as a Blank Check Company.Maria explains why SPACs were so attractive when they first “came on the scene.”What a de-SPAC merger is.How to gain enough information to discern whether to invest or not.How SPAC investors can redeem their investments.Why SPACs came to a grinding halt.How the threat of regulation affected the SPAC market.What happens to failed SPACs.Maria explains more about SPAC sponsors and their roles.We compare the SPAC trend with other past trends (dot-com bubble and crypto-craze).How a good economy engenders a highly speculative instrument like a SPAC.The future of SPACs.Comparing SPACs to the IPO model.The nature of SPACs and the relationship between sponsor groups and retail investors.Why SPACs were attractive to non-accredited investors. What the next hot asset class could be, according to Maria.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Maria Charon on LinkedInSECFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Given the recent collapse of some of the major players in the crypto space, its future is uncertain. Joining us for the very first episode of the Bite Sized Business Law Podcast to discuss crypto bankruptcies and what some are calling the ‘crypto winter’, is business law professor and faculty director of Fordham University School of Law’s Corporate Law Center, Richard Squire. Richard breaks down some of the similarities that exist between the auto industry bubble, the dot-com bubble, the 2008 financial crisis, and what we’re currently seeing in the crypto space. We discuss the interconnectedness between companies and whether or not insolvency leads to insolvency before Richard sheds light on what he expects for the future of crypto. You’ll hear his thoughts on whether or not we should expect more regulation, why he doesn’t believe there is a path forward for FTX, and the likelihood of FTX’s creditors getting their money back. To find out why Richard is actually positive about the future of crypto despite its current state, tune in today!Key Points From This Episode:An introduction to Professor of Business Law, Richard Squire.Today’s topic: crypto bankruptcies or the ‘crypto winter’. Parallels between the auto industry bubble, the dot-com bubble, the 2008 financial crisis, and what’s happening currently in crypto. To what extent there will be contagion. Concerns about the Federal Home Loan Bank system lending billions to crypto companies and whether or not insolvency leads to insolvency. The expansion of the monetary base by the Federal Reserve in recent years and how this has affected what has happened in crypto.Whether or not we should expect more regulation on crypto than that which already exists.Why big firms are in favor of stricter regulations. Whether or not there’s a path forward for FTX, as its CEO believes there is.  The likelihood of the FTX creditors getting their money back. The emergence of markets where you can buy and sell FTX claims and whether or not they are specific to crypto bankruptcy.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:Richard Squire FTXFordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center