Jesse M. Fried
89 Texas L. Rev. 1113
Executives of public companies receive most of their pay in equity compensation, which is intended to better align their interests with those of the firm’s shareholders. However, most equity compensation is tied to the short-term stock price, which may shift the executives’ focus from long-term value. Professor Fried identifies a different problem, which arises when the executive is free to sell stock in the short-term or must hold it for the long-term. Tying payoffs to the stock price, argues Fried, fails to align executives’ interests with the maximization of aggregate shareholder value, which is the amount of value flowing to all the firm’s shareholders over time. Fried shows that tying payoffs to the future stock price can even encourage executives to take steps to destroy aggregate shareholder value.
Two distortions result from tying executives’ payoffs to the future stock price. When the current price is below its actual value, executives whose pay is tied to the future stock price are rewarded for funding bargain-price share repurchases rather than making productive investments in the firm. When the stock price is higher than its actual value, these executives are rewarded for issuing new shares even if the firm cannot productively use the consideration received in exchange. Fried calls these “costly contractions” and “costly expansions.”
These distortions arise because the executives’ interests are aligned only with investors who do not buy or sell shares until the executive cashes out her equity. Executive interests are not aligned with those shareholders that either sell or purchase shares before the executive cashes out.
Fried proposes a mechanism that would perfectly tie executive pay to aggregate shareholder value, which he calls the “constant-share” approach. Accordingly, executives must adjust their equity holdings in the firm whenever it purchases or sells its own shares to keep them constant through the transaction, selling shares whenever the firms repurchases its own stock and buying whenever it issues new equity.
Fried acknowledges that problems with this approach exist. It will make it more difficult for executives to personally benefit, so they can be expected to resist its adoption. Also, it may lead to a lower stock price, which could in turn increase the likelihood of a takeover attempt or proxy fight. So, directors may also be against adopting it.
Mark L. Ascher
89 Texas L. Rev. 1149
As a result of intense lobbying, problematic legislative trends have developed over the last several decades in the law of the dead (as Professor Ascher refers to the law of wills and trusts). Here Professor Ascher reviews Dead Hands: A Social History of Wills, Trusts, and Inheritance Law by Lawrence M. Friedman, which explores the reach and longevity of the Dead Hand.
Ascher outlines and discusses four important changes in the law of the dead included in Friedman’s book. These involve changes in family structure, record keeping, demographics and culture, and societal attitudes toward wealth and the wealthy. One important change in family structure, for example, is a shift from focusing on the bloodline family to the family of affection and dependence. Another example is that the surviving spouse once only received limited inheritance, while today the surviving spouse is usually the primary if not exclusive taker. Although Friedman thinks this reflects a change in the family structure, Ascher argues that it is “attributable to and emblematic of the ever-increasing stature of women in American society.”
Ascher also examines the development of dynastic trusts and how such trusts concern societal attitudes toward wealth, in particular of the dynastic kind. Friedman thinks that in the beginning, Americans were initially skeptical of such wealth, but the end of the nineteenth century saw much more acceptance for it. Ascher, however, argues that the Progressive Movement was yet to come, which embodied a continued skepticism of dynastic wealth. Ascher then discusses other aspects of trusts and the changes thereto, some of which are troubling. But Friedman’s book, according to Ascher, lacks a sense of outrage over these developments, even though Friedman is critical of other issues, which is Ascher’s biggest criticism.
Ascher then looks at Friedman’s treatment of charitable gifts and foundations, and later, “death” taxes. He also returns to Friedman’s argument that our collective attitude toward wealth has changed, which Ascher does not believe to be the case. Ascher notes that we have strayed far from Thomas Jefferson’s warnings against establishing an aristocracy. Both the estate tax and the rule against perpetuities have been the primary means of preventing the accumulation and propagation of dynastic wealth. It is troubling then that both have recently been curtailed. Yet, Ascher concludes, it would not be difficult to get back on the right path, with a few sensible changes to the rules.
F. Gibbons Addison
89 Texas L. Rev. 1179
In this Note, the author addresses the U.S. system of wealth redistribution. According to Addison, the present wealth inequality between the rich and the poor is due to unequal opportunity, meaning an individual’s ability to pursue her objectives without interference from arbitrary obstacles.
Addison finds a solution to this problem in the revenue sharing system of professional sports leagues. Sports leagues employ such a system to increase the competitive balance of the league, which increases profits in the long run, even for high-revenue teams that contribute a portion of their revenues for distribution to low-revenue teams. Similarly, Addison argues that the U.S. should address wealth inequality by substituting the goals of equality and fairness for competition.
Addison begins with an overview of wealth redistribution in the U.S., starting in the colonial period with the influence of Adam Smith and continuing through the New Deal and the civil rights movement until arriving at the present system. Addison turns to an overview of revenue sharing in American professional sports, discussing the importance of cooperation in order to increase competition, ticket-sale sharing, and the potential problem of teams’ ability to exploit sources of local revenue.
Next, the author analyzes wealth redistribution in sports leagues. Addison notes some possible imperfections to the systems but argues that the leagues need low-revenue teams to be successful. The goal of revenue sharing, writes Addison, is not perfect competition but competitive balance.
Gregory R. Baden
89 Texas L. Rev. 1203
This Note proposes a third-party obviousness specialist in patent litigation in response to the challenge of practically determining this requirement in a technically and legally consistent manner.
Making consistent determinations of obviousness is a challenge at all levels of the patent system, from patent examiners to the U.S. Supreme Court. An erroneous determination can be costly, due to the cost of the disputes. The root of the challenge of determining obviousness is its doctrinal positioning as a mixed question of fact and law, according to Baden. One problem with this positioning is whether a judge, jury, or some combination of the two should be responsible for making the determination.
In response to the challenges of the obviousness determination, Baden proposes a third-party obviousness specialist, and situates the role of this specialist within the concepts of patent law. Rather than supplanting the judge or jury, the “obviousness master” would assist the court in establishing the boundaries of the obviousness factual inquiries. Baden notes that there is support for such a master in both academic commentary and existing legal doctrine, which he discusses.
He then addresses the options for practical implementation of the obviousness master. He provides two possible forms. First, the obviousness master could be implemented in a manner similar to that employed for a traditionally titled special master in claim construction or interpretation hearings. Second, the role could be developed via a specialized incarnation of an expert witness, which would include the use of a double-blind selection method for choosing the individual. Baden addresses each form in detail.
Lastly, Baden presents the benefits and challenges of, and arguments for and against, implementing an obviousness specialist. Baden concludes that an obviousness specialist would allow the parties, the court, and, importantly, the jury to focus on the primary task of navigating the defined waters of the invention without venturing into the unmapped sea of innovation.
Joshua H. Packman
89 Texas L. Rev. 1229
In this note, Packman discusses the pending Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill (PVS Bill), which is aimed at British electoral reform in response to the 2010 hung parliamentary election. The PVS Bill provides for a referendum on switching from the first-past-the-post electoral system to the alternative vote and would also reduce the size of Parliament to 600 members.
Packman first examines the effect of the PVS Bill on the British Constitution by virtue of the referendum. One important part of the British Constitution, according to Packman, is the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament. Packman discusses different aspects of this doctrine, and notes that he is taking a simplistic view for the purposes of the Note that Parliament is the supreme legislative authority and its sovereignty is the core principle of the British Constitution.
Packman then introduces Bruce Ackerman’s thoughts on an alternative source of constitutional legitimacy: the referendum. This would potentially vitiate parliamentary sovereignty, but Packman argues that this outcome is not preordained. Packman finds that the PVS Bill as a referendum only partly diminishes the sovereignty of Parliament.
Packman then analyzes the constitutional effects of switching the electoral system to the alternative vote, which he argues represents a major reform of the British Constitution and a threat to parliamentary sovereignty. He first provides an overview of the system and theory of government that exists under the current British Constitution. He then looks at how the PVS Bill would change this system. As such, Packman writes that the PVS Bill, by substantially reducing the number of seats won by the majority party, would effectively transform Parliament from a government of “front benchers” into a government of “backbenchers” by increasing the relative power of each member of the majority party vis-à-vis the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
This is not the first time that Parliament has attempted to change the voting system, concludes Packman. And if it fails, it will surely not be the last. Such alterations reflect underlying changes in the values embodied in the British Constitution, and the alternative votes represent a change from government based on parliamentary sovereignty to government based on popular sovereignty.
89 Texas L. Rev. 935
In this lighthearted piece, Wexler reviews the first volume of Douglas Laycock’s collected works, which contains roughly forty pieces that he wrote between 1985 and 2009.
On nearly every issue presented in the volume, Wexler finds himself on common ground with Laycock. For example, they both believe that religious believers should have robust exemption rights from general laws under the Free Exercise Clause. Moreover, Wexler notes that neither of them believes in God but also that what one believes about God should have no effect on how one interprets the First Amendment.
Wexler does have some reservations about a number of Laycock’s most important points. One of Laycock’s most important contributions to the field has to do with the concept of “neutrality.” Laycock pointed out that there are two main types of neutrality. “Formal neutrality” means government cannot utilize religion as a standard for action or inaction. “Substantive neutrality” means that the Religion Clauses require government to minimize the extent to which it either encourages or discourages religious views and practices. Wexler remains unconvinced that neutrality should be used at all when talking about the Religion Clauses. In his view, Laycock’s concept of substantive neutrality may not seem enough like what we generally think of as the core meaning of neutrality in order to justify calling it neutrality.
In light of this and other considerations, Wexler suggests reformulating substantive neutrality to mean that government must minimize the effects of its actions on private religious choices, unless it has a compelling interest and unless it is taking positions on contested issues that will have potentially significant effects on some religions. Although this would not be as simple a formulation as “substantive neutrality,” Wexler argues that it would help eliminate the confusion surrounding the concept.
Wexler wonders, however, whether it might have been better to put together a shorter, fully original book setting out Laycock’s views on religious liberty and the First Amendment for the general public. Whether or not such a book is in the future, Wexler finds the current volume to be a great accomplishment.
89 Texas L. Rev. 949
In this piece, Laycock responds to reviews of his work by Thomas Berg, Steven Smith, and Jay Wexler. Professor Smith argues that Laycock has let his views on religion drive his views on religious liberty, a form of the Puritan mistake. Laycock notes that he is a secular agnostic who respects believers and thinks that both “sides” should win on some issues and lose on others. He writes that it is only to the extent we distinguish our views on religious liberty from our views on religion that religious liberty can contribute towards solving the underlying problem.
Laycock has also recasted religious reasons for adopting a regime of religious liberty in secular terms, and Professors Berg and Smith criticize Laycock for attempting to justify religious liberty in exclusively secular terms. So, Laycock clarifies his position: he does not mean to exclude religious arguments from the public debate or foreclose public officials from relying on religious motivations. Rather, he means that government cannot announce its commitment to a disputed religious proposition. Laycock emphasizes that he is not concerned whether government officials have religious motivations, but that the laws and actions of government remain neutral towards religion.
Professor Berg also raises a different objection, which is that the case for religious liberty is weakened when we omit religious reasons. Laycock notes that he himself emphasizes religious reasons for religious audiences, but he argues that such reasons are useless for secular audiences. And to justify religious liberty in a religiously diverse society, the reasons given must not require acceptance or rejection of any propositions of religious faith.
Professor Smith criticizes Laycock for counting the alienation of nonbelievers as a reason to keep the government from endorsing religious belief but not counting the parallel alienation of believers who expect government to endorse their beliefs. Laycock notes that this is only one reason among others for why he thinks government should refrain from taking positions on religious questions. He writes that it is incoherent to the concept of religious liberty to allow one religious group, such as conservative Christians, to have the right to use the instruments of government to exercise their religion.
Professor Smith also questions Laycock’s resistance to generic endorsement like the national motto. Laycock notes that, in practice, there will always be a de minimis exception. Often such generic endorsements are not really that controversial, but Laycock writes that this is less and less true as the nonbelieving population continues to grow.
After addressing several other considerations and objections, Laycock concludes that the criticisms in these reviews will help inform his future work, for which he is indebted.
Lauren E. Barrows
89 Texas L. Rev. 967
Enforcement agencies, through a series of speeches and documents, have recently adopted a policy to encourage private industry groups known as standard-setting organizations (SSOs) to engage in ex antelicensing negotiations. Patent holders and many potential licensees are typically SSO members. As a group, they could potentially determine licensing terms when considering whether to incorporate patented technology into a standard but do not for fear of antitrust liability. In this Note, Barrows argues that given the new policy, SSOs will continue to not engage in ex ante licensing negotiations without further agency action. DOJ and FTC statements currently do not provide sufficiently clear guidance. So, SSOs will continue to fear antitrust liability, and thus the new policy will not be implemented. Not only does this undermine the agencies’ credibility, writes Barrows, it will also remain unclear whether ex ante licensing negotiations are actually desirable.
Barrows provides some background on SSOs and their importance, specifically in the context of the IP-intensive, high-technology industries. Barrows explains that, in an effort to mitigate holdup, many SSOs require members to license any patented technology incorporated into a standard on certain terms. But, because SSOs fear antitrust liability, they do not determine these terms through ex ante licensing, and the terms that they do use are vague. Barrows notes that could undercut their usefulness.
Moreover, Barrows argues that the approach of the enforcement agencies matters. She provides an overview of the Sherman Act and then looks at two violations potentially posed by ex ante licensing negotiations. Barrows then analyzes the recent statements of the DOJ and FTC, arguing that the agencies failed to provide clear guidance to the SSOs to encourage them to undertake such negotiations. Finally, she offers a pair of suggestions for limiting the chance that SSOs who engage in such negotiations will face liability.
Michael J. Ritter
89 Texas L. Rev. 999
In this Note, Ritter examines legal protections for queer elders residing in nursing homes, specifically under the Nursing Home Reform Act (NHRA). As the U.S. population steadily ages, so does the portion of queer elders increase—what Ritter refers to as “the hidden population.” What’s more, this segment of the elder population often lacks immediate family members that they can live with when unable to live alone and, unlike opposite-sex couples, same-sex partners are often ineligible for tax and other benefits. As a result, a relatively greater number of queer elders will be more likely to move into nursing homes.
Ritter first provides an overview of the problems elderly individuals face when transitioning from independent living to a nursing home. He highlights the distinctive problems queer elders face in this transition, specifically discrimination in the form of abuse, neglect, and stigmatization. These problems, Ritter notes, along with a perceived need to conceal their sexual orientation, contributes to the deterioration of their health.
Ritter next reviews pertinent provisions of the NHRA. This legislation regulates nursing homes that receive federal funds by establishing a residents’ bill of rights and requiring nursing home to maximize the welfare of each patient. Ritter argues the NHRA should be reformed to add a statutory right of nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, to require nursing aides to undergo sensitivity training, and to diminish the discretion of the Secretary to decide whether to issue penalties to nursing homes that violate the NHRA’s proscriptions. Doing so would not only improve the relationships between queer elders and their nursing aides, but also improve the quality of care these residents receive.
David A. Snyder
89 Texas L. Rev. 1019
According to democratic theory, copyright should be used to bring society, individuals, or both closer to some ideal. Democratic theorists thus value the active making of works of expression by individuals, that is, participation, because they believe it can help to achieve this ideal.
In this Note, Snyder explores two problems with the value of participation. First, the content of the value of participation is vague, with room for greater specification. Second, the value of participation seemingly violates the neutrality thesis by mandating government action on the basis of a conception of the good. Neutralists, by contrast, argue that coercive government action designed to promote a view of the good is inappropriate.
Snyder argues that understanding the relationship between the value of autonomy and that of participation helps to give further specification of the latter. Moreover, Snyder argues that this modified concept of participation does not violate the neutrality thesis. On the one hand, it does not qualify as a concept of the good. On the other, its implementation does not involve coercion.