Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- & abusive acts (1)
- Anti-competitive harm (1)
- Antitrust (1)
- Collaborative insider-shareholder model (1)
- Competition policy (1)
-
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (1)
- Consumer protection (1)
- Corporate governance (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Credit cards (1)
- Debit cards (1)
- Deceptive (1)
- Enhancement of shareholder information (1)
- Hedge fund activism (1)
- Management (1)
- Market structure (1)
- Merchant claims (1)
- Network & bank interchange fees (1)
- Ohio v. American Express (1)
- Private ordering (1)
- Publicly-held companies (1)
- Shareholders (1)
- Spectrum of shareholder collaboration (1)
- Theory of the firm (1)
- Two-sided markets (1)
- UDAAP (1)
- Unfair (1)
- Venture capital (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Other Business
Shareholder Collaboration, Jill E. Fisch, Simone M. Sepe
Shareholder Collaboration, Jill E. Fisch, Simone M. Sepe
All Faculty Scholarship
Two models of the firm dominate corporate law. Under the management-power model, decision-making power rests primarily with corporate insiders (officers and directors). The competing shareholder-power model defends increased shareholder power to limit managerial authority. Both models view insiders and shareholders as engaged in a competitive struggle for corporate power in which corporate law functions to promote operational efficiency while limiting managerial agency costs. As scholars and judges continue to debate the appropriate balance of power between shareholders and insiders, corporate practice has moved on. Increasingly, the insider–shareholder dynamic is collaborative, not competitive.
This Article traces the development of insider–shareholder collaboration, …
What’S In Your Wallet (And What Should The Law Do About It?), Natasha Sarin
What’S In Your Wallet (And What Should The Law Do About It?), Natasha Sarin
All Faculty Scholarship
In traditional markets, firms can charge prices that are significantly elevated relative to their costs only if there is a market failure. However, this is not true in a two-sided market (like Amazon, Uber, and Mastercard), where firms often subsidize one side of the market and generate revenue from the other. This means consideration of one side of the market in isolation is problematic. The Court embraced this view in Ohio v. American Express, requiring that anticompetitive harm on one side of a two-sided market be weighed against benefits on the other side.
Legal scholars denounce this decision, which, …