Publisher: College of William and Mary   (Total: 5 journals)   [Sort by number of followers]

Showing 1 - 5 of 5 Journals sorted alphabetically
William & Mary Bill of Rights J.     Open Access   (Followers: 6)
William & Mary Business Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
William & Mary J. of Women and the Law     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
William and Mary Law Review     Open Access   (Followers: 5)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
William & Mary Business Law Review
Number of Followers: 3  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 2159-7146
Published by College of William and Mary Homepage  [5 journals]
  • Detoxing from Clean Claims: Bridging the Gap Between "Clean" and
           "Dirty" Beauty

    • Authors: Alecsandra Dragus
      Abstract: The clean beauty industry has gained increasing popularity in the last couple of years. This has spurred the development of many brands and impacted what consumers look for in their products. This Note engages in the existing conversation in the beauty industry pertaining to "clean" products by showing that the lack of interference from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to set definitional criteria for what constitute ''clean" products has resulted in an increase in the commercialization of health-conscious consumer beliefs based on ambiguous and misleading information. These consumers are stuck in a loop created and perpetrated by companies. Without guidelines from the FDA and FTC, companies took the opportunity to exploit a narrative that the United States (U.S.) does not regulate ingredients in cosmetics or skincare. In turn, companies situate themselves as actors looking after the welfare of consumers in the cosmetic and beauty space. This Note seeks to dispel this myth and urge the FDA and FTC to create guidance on the advertisement of personal care products that claim to be ''clean," "natural," and most importantly, "non-toxic." Dual action is needed. The FDA must set the standard, and the FTC must regulate product use in commerce.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:13:38 PDT
       
  • Brick by Brick: Deconstructing Pyramid-Like Companies by Requiring
           Disclosures from Multilevel Marketing Schemes

    • Authors: Alex Chumbley
      Abstract: Multilevel marketing companies ("MLMs") have thrived in the internet era as participants are able to market their products to their friends and followers on social media sites. Further, periods of high unemployment, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to increased enrollment in these companies. However, very few people actually make any money from selling for these companies. Beyond that, almost half of those who participate lose money due to the enrollment costs. This Note examines past case law surrounding MLMs and critiques the current regulations in place that fail to ensure that new participants are making a fully informed decision when they sign up to work for these companies. Ultimately, this Note proposes new disclosure requirements on MLMs that will better protect consumers and make sure that these business structures do not harm financially at-risk populations.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:13:33 PDT
       
  • Regulating Dynamic Risk in Changing Market Conditions

    • Authors: Susan Navarro Smelcer et al.
      Abstract: How successful are the SEC's attempts to regulate dynamic risk in financial markets' Using mutual fund disclosure data from two financial shocks--the Puerto Rican debt crisis and COVID-19--this Article finds evidence that SEC open-ended regulations, like the obligation to disclose changing market conditions, are largely successful in capturing dynamic, future risk. Funds engage in widespread and, often, detailed disclosures for new risks--although these disclosures vary widely in specificity. But not all funds disclose new risks. This creates perverse incentives for funds to opt out of disclosure or downplay threats with boilerplate language when new risks are emerging. This Article recommends several SEC interventions to improve dynamic risk disclosures including empirically monitoring disclosures, issuing guidance when problematic variation is observed, and enforcing disclosure standards.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:13:30 PDT
       
  • Allocation of Property Appreciation: A Statutory Approach to the Judicial
           Dialectic

    • Authors: Lawrence Ponoroff
      Abstract: Many, perhaps the majority, of Chapter 13 cases end up being converted to Chapter 7. The converted Chapter 7 case is not a new case, it is a continuation of the case that was commenced with the filing of the original Chapter 13 petition. However, there are important structural differences between the two chapters, including over what constitutes property of the estate. This creates some thorny issues surrounding whether property of the estate as generally defined in section 541(a) of the Bankruptcy Code or property of the estate as specifically defined in Chapter 13 controls in determining the scope of the estate in the converted case. Initially, the circuits were split on this question as it related to earnings and other property acquired by the debtor after filing. Congress resolved that matter in 1994, adopting a new section 348(f)(1), which makes clear that such after-acquired property is excluded from the Chapter 7 estate. In making that choice, the legislative history cited the strong public policy favoring repayment over liquidation and the desire to avoid creating disincentives to debtors' choosing Chapter 13 at the onset. However, the text new subsection did not address all the issues affecting property of the estate, including allocation of increases in the net value of property that was in existence at the time of filing. The legislative history, however, did, suggesting that the intent was to permit the debtor to at least retain increases attributable to payments made secured debt. Nevertheless, once more, the courts have split on this issue, with the most antipodal positions explicable in terms of differing approaches to statutory interpretation. Moreover, there are any number of intermediate positions that can be found in the decisional law between those extremes. This wide spectrum of different approaches to the problem has introduced a high degree of costly uncertainty and disuniformity into the system. In attempting to supply a definitive answer, this Article determines that both of the extreme positions--all such property stays with the debtor, or all such property inures to the Chapter 7 estate--are plausible but neither is without its shortcomings. Therefore, it concludes the only way definitively to resolve the matter without the inordinate delay entailed in waiting for the issue to work its way through the circuit courts, is through legislation. Therefore, this Article, lays out the language and rationale for such a reform effort. It is contended that this alternative approach addresses the weaknesses in all of the current positions and represents overall a solution that better advances the core policies underlying the consumer bankruptcy system.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:13:28 PDT
       
  • Rules of Regularity: An Empirical Quest for Commercial Certainty in
           Arbitration

    • Authors: Cornelis J.W. Baaij
      Abstract: The U.S. Supreme Court justifies the broad enforceability of arbitration agreements with the notion that arbitration expands parties' autonomy to contract for an efficient alternative to court proceedings. Unfortunately, the current practice of both domestic and cross-border commercial arbitration does not fully live up to these expectations. It is crucial to both autonomy and efficiency theories of contract law that adjudicatory decision-making is predictable so parties can tailor their contracts accordingly. However, commercial arbitration's prevailing culture of confidentiality and lack of stare decisis diminishes commercial certainty. To bring the reality of commercial arbitration closer to the Supreme Court's reasoning, this Article proposes a method of empirical legal research that helps uncover patterns of arbitral decision-making and articulate arbitration's "rules of regularity." It also offers a proof of concept by presenting an original quantitative text analysis of unpublished arbitral awards from the International Court of Arbitration, which focuses on the arbitral assessment of compensatory damages in breach-of-contract disputes. That study uncovers three substantive and procedural rules of regularity, which future transactors can accept or contract around when negotiating damages and arbitration clauses.
      PubDate: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:13:26 PDT
       
  • Table of Contents (v. 13, no. 3)

    • PubDate: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 08:13:23 PDT
       
  • Emergency Bylaws: An Underutilized Tool for Corporate Operation During an
           Emergency

    • Authors: Grace Myers
      Abstract: Emergency bylaws are an underutilized tool for corporate governance whose importance has been highlighted by COVID-19. Emergency bylaws can be included within corporations’ bylaws and only operate during an “emergency” as defined by state statutes. These provisions usually give boards more agency to act during an emergency through mechanisms such as looser quorum and notice requirements. These provisions will be increasingly important during future pandemics, wars, and global warming. However, few corporations have these bylaws, and the current hodgepodge of state statutes hinders their adoption. The current state of emergency bylaws regulation and implementation raises some questions about shareholder rights and disclosure requirements. States should look to the newly updated Delaware Corporate Code provisions for a better model of regulation, and corporations should adopt provisions tailored to their needs.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:25 PDT
       
  • Old MacDonald had a Trust: How Market Consolidation in the Agricultural
           Industry, Spurred on by a Lack of Antitrust Law Enforcement, is Destroying
           Small Agricultural Producers

    • Authors: Cody McCracken
      Abstract: The U.S. agricultural industry is controlled by a handful of large corporations. Unprecedented levels of market consolidation has created a power disparity, where controlling corporations alone shape markets, often to the disadvantage of small agricultural producers. A primary, and often overlooked, cause of this consolidationdriven bargaining disadvantage, and its resulting harm, can be found in the lacking enforcement of the nation’s antitrust laws. Faulty metrics and lax legal interpretations employed by regulatory agencies have permitted large corporations to grab control of nearly every sector of the industry. From the seeds farmers plant to the markets they sell their goods into; the American food chain is one of the most consolidated areas of the entire economy. This unfettered concentration has been disastrous for small producers, increasing their costs and suppressing their profits, all while consumer costs continue to rise. Overall, this Note will present that a lack of enforcement of antitrust laws is a leading contributor to increased market consolidation of the agricultural industry, wreaking havoc on small producers, consumers, rural communities, and as a result, the whole nation.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:23 PDT
       
  • Franchisees, Consumers, and Employees: Choice and Arbitration

    • Authors: Robert W. Emerson et al.
      Abstract: Commentators and lawmakers have called attention to the rising frequency of contractual arbitration as a non-negotiable condition of many relationships. Indeed, it is a rare individual who is not subject to at least one pre-dispute, binding arbitration agreement.This Article studies common concerns associated with binding, pre-dispute arbitration agreements and evaluates their use in consumer-vendor, employee-employer, and franchisee-franchisor relationships. Having introduced concepts relevant throughout the Article, the Article in Part I studies contractual arbitration as a form of alternative dispute resolution for transactional disputes between consumers and vendors. It examines industry self-regulation, due process, consumer salience, and forum accessibility including online dispute resolution, among other matters. Part II evaluates concerns about unfairness toward the less powerful party in employment arbitration, including judicial safeguards against unconscionability and the proposed Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (the FAIR Act), while Part III critically examines bargaining power disparities between franchisees and franchisors.Based on a comprehensive review of available data and literature, this Article finds that, while the most charitable interpretations by arbitration proponents are untenable, some measured but broadly supportive arguments for contractual arbitration can be persuasive. Although unchecked bargaining power disparities are rightfully concerning and should be addressed, contractual arbitration can nonetheless play a useful role in relational contracts.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:20 PDT
       
  • Why Comparability is a Greater Problem than Greenwashing in ESG ETFS

    • Authors: Ryan Clements
      Abstract: This Article argues that comparability in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) exchange traded funds (ETFs) is a much greater problem than greenwashing. Rising demand for sustainable investment products in recent years has been met with an explosion in ESG ETF varieties, and numerous ESG-themed funds have captured massive capital inflows. There is little evidence, however, that deceptive “greenwashing” is widespread in ETFs. ETF issuers face significant reputational costs from such behavior, and there are effectively no consumer switching costs for hyperliquid, easily accessible ETFs. While nondeceptive practices of asset managers are observable in the zero-sum, highly competitive, asset management game of capturing new ESG-directed capital flows, the subjectivity that ETF issuers use to integrate ESG considerations into the composition of underlying ETF holdings is so disparate that investors face tremendous information acquisition and synthesis costs, and difficulty comparing products. This dilemma grows as product choice expands. ESG ETFs also create unique issuer and commercial index provider conflicts. An investor focused regulatory framework for ESG ETFs would aid comparability, standardization, and consistent product marketing presentation. To this end, this Article builds on the author’s prior work on comparative complexity in ETFs by advancing three immediate measures to improve comparability and facilitate more efficient capital allocation in ESG ETF varieties: first, require justification of a fund’s usage of ESG terminology in its name through specific ETF disclosures; second, standardize ESG measurement metrics; and third, mandate uniform information presentation layouts on ETF issuer websites.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:17 PDT
       
  • Raising Corporate Consciousness of Employer Liability for Video Zoom While
           Driving

    • Authors: Nanci K. Carr
      Abstract: Imagine that you have logged onto a video Zoom meeting, and you notice that one of the participants is driving. He fumbles with the phone, trying to align the camera with his face, looking from the phone to the road ahead. Other participants on the call either say nothing or thank him for being willing to participate from his car. That is distracted driving, and if he collides with a car or pedestrian due to that distraction, each of those meeting participants could be held liable for distracting the driver. In addition, they would be witnesses to his distracted driving in the lawsuit that would likely result in his employer being held liable. This Article summarizes the risks of employer liability arising from distracted driving and proposes policies to reduce the risk of that liability.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:15 PDT
       
  • Thoughts Regarding the Application of the Step Transaction Doctrine to the
           Section 351 Control Requirement and Complex Media, Inc. v. Commissioner

    • Authors: Philip G. Cohen
      Abstract: Over thirty years ago, Professor Ronald H. Jensen authored an article in the Virginia Tax Review, titled “Of Form and Substance: Tax Free Incorporations and Other Transactions Under Section 351.” Professor Jensen asserted that it was inappropriate to utilize the step transaction doctrine to determine whether the control requirement was met in a purported section 351 transaction, involving a disposition of some, or all, of the transferor’s shares even if effected by a binding contract made prior to the contribution.Professor Jensen concluded that the courts and the Internal Revenue Service (Service) have produced a hodgepodge of intellectually inconsistent decisions and rulings making predictability problematic. There is no doubt of the many inconsistencies rendered by the Service and the courts in addressing the use of the step transaction to determine whether the control test under section 351 has been satisfied when there had been dispositions connected with the initial contribution. Nevertheless, there are sound policy reasons for the application of this judicial canon in certain circumstances and that Professor Jensen’s prescription for remedying the problem, i.e., by the complete elimination of the doctrine’s utilization in this context, is unwarranted.This Article also considers the recent Tax Court decision, Complex Media, Inc. v. Commissioner, which addresses a different facet of section 351 control. The case involved, inter alia, the taxpayer’s successful attempt to invoke the step transaction doctrine to treat as boot, payments made to one of the partners of the transferor. Another aspect of the arrangement, however, is particularly troubling and the reason why discussion of the case is part of this Article examining section 351 control. This concerns the taxpayer’s position regarding how the requisite ownership was achieved. The court, at the behest of both parties, reluctantly agreed to include an act, i.e., a merger, in allowing the section to apply when the taxpayer’s form arguably did not comport with the statutory requirements. The Service’s concurrence to section 351 treatment was apparently motivated by its desire to minimize taxpayer’s amortization deductions rather than seeking to achieve a sound policy outcome.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:12 PDT
       
  • Table of Contents (v.13, no.2)

    • PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:58:09 PDT
       
  • Lending a Hand Instead of Breaking the Bank: The Imperative Need to
           Resolve the Circuit Split for Determining Undue Hardship for Section
           523(A)(8) Student Loan Discharges

    • Authors: Rucha Pandit
      Abstract: The Bankruptcy Code permits petitioners to discharge their student debts if they are able to demonstrate that their loans impose an undue hardship. Somewhat frustratingly, the Code does not define what exactly constitutes undue hardship in the context of student loan discharges. Moreover, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has broken its silence to offer guidance on the issue. As a result, the rest of the federal judiciary has been once again, left to its own devices.Over the past few decades, the Brunner and totality-of-the-circumstances tests have emerged as the standards that federal circuits choose between to assess whether student loan repayment would cause the petitioner undue hardship. Although an overwhelming majority of circuits has endorsed the Brunner formulation, the test is considered by many to set an impossibly high burden for petitioners to surmount.This Note argues that the circuit split for determining undue hardship is purely illusory. The plain wording of both the Brunner and totality-of-the-circumstances formulations indicates that there is no real difference in the substantive inquiry conducted by each test. Rather, the divergence stems from a history of a retributive dicta being wrongly imputed to the Brunner standard. This Note argues that if the Brunner Standard is properly applied, the notion of a circuit split will be dispelled. Furthermore, this Note also encourages Congress to assist the judiciary by providing guidance on how it defines undue hardship.
      PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:40 PST
       
  • To Bar or Not to Bar: Title I of the ADA and After-Acquired Evidence of a
           Plaintiff's Failure to Satisfy Job Prerequisites

    • Authors: Kathryn Johnson-Monfort
      Abstract: Through enactment of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, Congress unequivocally resolved to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the workplace. However, distortions have since created loopholes through which disability-based employment discrimination may freely slip. An enforcement regulation promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enables such circumvention of the ADA by creating an additional prima facie requirement: a plaintiff must not only be able to perform the essential functions of the position as required by the statute, but must also satisfy all job-related requirements of the position as demanded by the EEOC’s 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(m). Thus, in cases where a plaintiff’s failure to satisfy job prerequisites is discovered only after the alleged discrimination, 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(m) still permits (indeed, requires) dismissal. In light of the Supreme Court’s rejection of after-acquired evidence as a bar to employment discrimination claims in other contexts, action must be taken to eradicate this ADA escape clause. Although the EEOC advocates abandoning its regulation in favor of the ADA’s less stringent standard in certain circumstances, its proposed method usurps the applicable burden-shifting framework and sets the stage for prima facie overload on the plaintiff.This Note proposes a more straightforward alternative approach: legislative action should be taken to enable reversion to the ADA’s singular essential functions standard in instances where a plaintiff’s failure to satisfy job-related requirements (1) is discovered only after the alleged discriminatory employment action, and (2) constitutes the sole flaw in the prima facie case.
      PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:37 PST
       
  • Regulatory Competition and State Capacity

    • Authors: Martin W. Sybblis
      Abstract: This Article explores an underlying tension in the regulatory competition literature regarding why some jurisdictions are more attractive to firms than others. It pays special attention to offshore financial centers (OFCs). OFCs court the business of nonresidents, offer business friendly regulatory environments, and provide for minimal, if any, taxation on their customers. On the one extreme, OFCs are theorized as merely products of legislative capture— thereby lacking any meaningful agency of their own. On the other hand, OFCs are conceptualized as well-governed jurisdictions that attract investment because of the high quality of their laws and legal institutions—indicating some ability to manage legislative capture. This Article argues that the prevailing explanatory frameworks for OFC development and success overlook deeper institutional structures within these jurisdictions. Drawing on the political sociology literature on state development, this Article offers a new theoretical framework. It suggests that some OFCs may have experienced more success than others because of how they developed “state capacity”—i.e., their ability to formulate and implement specific kinds of policy choices skillfully and effectively. This Article makes two important contributions to the regulatory competition and OFC literatures. First, it places the institutional quality of jurisdictions at the center of the discourse and analysis of OFC achievements in the business law arena. Second, it introduces the interdisciplinary concept of “state capacity” into the growing scholarly debate concerning the rise of OFCs.
      PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:34 PST
       
  • Vectors: Immunity in Commercial Aviation

    • Authors: Timothy M. Ravich
      Abstract: COVID-19 nearly wiped out demand for commercial air travel in 2020, driving down passenger traffic by a jaw-dropping 94.3% from the previous year. The airline industry thus understandably lobbied for a government bailout to manage what was nothing short of an existential crisis, with losses exceeding $35 billion. Less worthy of sympathy, however, were the ad hoc policies airlines unhelpfully put in the path of their customers even while securing for themselves $25 billion in payroll grants together with a similar sum in low-interest loans. For example, carriers refused to provide refunds or liquidate travel credits in a straightforward way for those whose travel was impacted during the pandemic. These consumer practices spawned a number of class action “refund cases” around the nation—nearly all of which were doomed to fail at the earliest stages of litigation under the terms of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, which expressly requires courts to dismiss lawsuits related to airline prices, routes, and services.But should the law recognize a pandemic exception and allow consumer tort claims to proceed against airlines arising from the transmission of infectious diseases' For that matter, could or should airlines be liable for crew-to-passenger or passenger-to-passenger transmission of infectious diseases' This Article argues no even if the risk of epidemics and pandemics are happening more regularly over the last few decades. Notwithstanding numerous examples of despicable and infuriating airline policies and practices related to the pandemic that would be remediable by operation of law if undertaken by other businesses, the exceptional legal immunity airlines have with respect to general consumer torts promote important and stabilizing economic policies that should not be undone by courts. What is more, courts should bar negligence suits against airlines arising from the alleged transmission of infectious diseases lest they become immersed in hopeless evidentiary and administrative problems.In all, as a normative and practical matter, courts should have a minimal role in the enforcement of consumer protection issues under the explicit terms of the Airline Deregulation Act. And, when presented with controversies implicating airline deregulation, courts should construe existing national and international aviation service and safety laws as preempting lawsuits against airlines for consumer claims and torts connected to the transmission of infectious microorganisms on commercial aircraft. To be clear, while this Article bemoans undesirable consequences of the Airline Deregulation Act relative to passenger claims arising from public health crises now and in the future, it argues that any policy changes that should or might occur must do so by lawmakers alone.
      PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:31 PST
       
  • Shape Mark (Trade Dress) Distinctiveness: A Comparative Inquiry into U.S.
           and E.U. Trademark Law

    • Authors: Qadir Qeidary
      Abstract: Nowadays, the increasing application of visual elements, as non-traditional trademarks, to convey commercial information has brought about some new challenges to pioneer legal systems. In this regard, the question of shape marks’ (trade dress) distinctiveness has also caused some hot debates in U.S. and EU trademark law. Indeed, the most challenging legal question before those legal jurisdictions is about the method of transplanting the concept of trademark distinctiveness into the mechanism through which shape marks, as visual mediums, perform a trademark communicative function. Technically, the indefinite nature of shape marks or trade dress marks and lack of a definitive or pre-intended source of meaning has made them unpredictable in terms of distinctiveness examination. This Article has employed a comparative perspective to investigate the U.S. and EU’s historical and current legal positions towards shape marks’ distinctiveness. This Article has also found that both the U.S. “ontological tests” and EU “significant departure criterion” suffer from the heavy emphasis on the “distinguishing” capability among other comparable shapes or designs and ignorance of the “source-identifying” function of shape marks. Furthermore, their endeavors for posing the question of inherent distinctiveness in a contextual environment will make the normative parts of the tests useless and cause time and cost expenditures. Finally, having considered the competitive and public interests in EU and U.S. trademark law, this Article suggests that relying on a market-led approach, in which the collected information from the relevant consumers is the most decisive method in finding distinctive character.
      PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:29 PST
       
  • The Use and Misuse of Fiduciary Duties: Corporate Social Responsibility
           and the Standard of Review

    • Authors: Jonathan R. Povilonis
      Abstract: This Article provides a crucial corrective to the “corporate social responsibility” debate, which concerns whether corporations have the obligation to protect or serve the interests of groups other than their shareholders, like employees or customers (often called “stakeholders”). Scholars on one side of the debate have repeatedly presumed that corporate directors’ fiduciary duties to shareholders play an important role in protecting shareholders from decisions that favor stakeholders at their expense. Scholars on the other side agree that fiduciary duties provide meaningful protection against unfavorable conduct but argue that directors should also owe fiduciary duties to stakeholders so they may be similarly protected. This Article argues that this shared premise is mistaken: Fiduciary duties in practice play almost no role in director decisions to favor one corporate group over another. The Article first explains that courts and scholars rarely note the difference between two distinct definitions of the duty of loyalty—one broad and one narrow— and argues that only the broader definition would allow this duty to have any impact on directors’ distribution of corporate resources. Under this narrow definition, fiduciary duties to shareholders prevent directors from acting in their own self-interest, but not from acting in the interests of stakeholders at shareholders’ expense. The Article then argues that Delaware law enforces only the narrow definition of loyalty due to its default judicial standard of review, the business judgment rule, which largely eliminates shareholders’ ability to protect themselves from directors’ decisions that favor other stakeholders. Finally, given this is true for shareholders, the Article argues it would likewise be true for employees (or any other stakeholders), were they to be owed fiduciary duties by directors. Because fiduciary duties do not protect against such unfavorable conduct, the Article concludes it is a mistake to debate to whom directors should owe fiduciary duties. Advocates for shareholder or stakeholder protection should therefore focus on other mechanisms to obtain it.
      PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:26 PST
       
  • Table of Contents and Masthead (v. 13, no. 1)

    • PubDate: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 12:37:23 PST
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.235.65.220
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-