Advertise on podcast: Bite-Sized Business Law

Who decides what a college athlete’s talent is worth? In this episode, we welcome legendary litigator Jim Quinn, former head of litigation at Weil, Gotshal & Manges and founder of JW Quinn ADR, about the legal battles that have shaped athletes’ rights. Jim explains the changes his practice brought to sports, including professional free agency and revenue-linked salary caps. Jim then discusses the NCAA’s amateurism rules, the cases that challenged them, and how NIL collectives and direct school payments work. Jim challenges the position of universities regarding paying athletes for their name, image, and likeness, and explores how money is reshaping recruiting and transfers. Jim also opines on the Protect College Sports Act, whether collective bargaining offers a better way forward, and the challenges ahead for professional sports. Finally, Jim shares career lessons from decades of representing players and advice for young lawyers hoping to enter the field of sports law. Tune in to hear about the fight over who gets paid, who sets the rules, and whose interests those rules protect. Key Points From This Episode: Meet Jim Quinn and hear how he started his career in sports law.Discover why free agency increased franchise values and drove fan interest. Learn why the NBA salary cap on revenues mattered so much for players. Explore what the NCAA’s amateurism rules were and why they became a problem.Find out what NIL collectives do and how they get money to athletes.Understand the difference between money from schools and third-party NIL deals.Uncover why schools don’t want to classify their athletes as employees.See how schools put a fair market value on athletes and decide who gets paid. Hear why the transfer portal has fans worried and whether those fears are valid. What the Protect College Sports Act would limit and who it actually protects. Whether NIL money could become part of high school sports. The next big legal issues in pro sports and where AI might fit in. Jim shares advice on breaking into sports law and his early career lessons. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Jim Quinn on LinkedIn JW Quinn ADR LLC Don’t Be Afraid to Win Protect College Sports Act The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

When corporations face social questions faster than lawmakers can answer them, who makes the rules guiding those decisions? On this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, Stavros Gadinis, the George R. Johnson Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Berkeley Center for Law and Business, discusses his new book, Corporate Ordering: How Corporations Navigate Social Conflict. Stavros provides fascinating examples from household private sector companies who were forced to shape the rules of their industries way before the government moved. What are the benefits and pitfalls of letting corporations figure out what standards should govern them, and then having the governments simply adopt their frameworks? Can companies really exercise this influence responsibly before public oversight catches up? Tune in to hear Stavros’s opinion on these questions, why these decisions matter far beyond the boardroom, and how lawyers can help companies make the best decisions available. Key Points From This Episode: Discover why social conflicts expose a gap in the business judgment rule.Unpack what corporate ordering means when business choices become rules for everyone.Uncover how corporate business practices have influenced public law.Hear examples of how innovation outpaced regulation and how it affected the law from Uber, Lyft, Microsoft, and more.Explore what Stavros’s conversations with AI companies reveal about regulation.Consider what it takes to create meaningful and effective deliberation.Learn why Stavros wants boards’ decision-making process reflected in fiduciary duties.Understand how his proposal would fit within the business judgment rule.Why corporate rulemaking matters even if you never serve on a board.Advice on what lawyers can do to help companies navigate tough decisions.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Stavros Gadinis Stavros Gadinis on LinkedIn Corporate Ordering: How Corporations Navigate Social Conflict Stavros Gadinis on his Corporate Ordering Book Berkeley Center for Law and Business Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Ethical lines are not always crossed in one dramatic leap. Sometimes pressure, culture, and ambition make each small compromise easier to justify. In today’s episode Tom Hardin, author of Wired on Wall Street and the former FBI informant known as Tipper X, discusses his journey from young hedge fund analyst to cooperating witness in a major insider trading investigation. Tom explains how, during his time in the hedge fund world, information advantages were rewarded, why the line between mosaic research and material nonpublic information could feel blurry, and how one phone call led to tipping, four illicit trades, and only $46,000 in personal gain that cost him his career. He recounts being approached by the FBI, deciding to cooperate, and living with the consequences. Amy and Tom also discuss the fraud triangle, the warning signs of cultures that create conditions for misconduct, why lawyers handling confidential deal information must understand their role as gatekeepers, and how prediction markets may create new risks for informed trading. Hear Tom’s candid reflections on pressure, accountability, and what it takes to rebuild after crossing the line. Key Points From This Episode: How Tom Hardin entered the hedge fund world as a young analyst.Why the line between research and material nonpublic information can feel blurry.The phone call that led to tipping, four illicit trades, and lasting consequences.What happened when the FBI approached Tom and asked him to cooperate.Why Tom wishes he had called a lawyer as soon as the FBI approached him.How the fraud triangle (pressure, opportunity, and rationalization) shapes ethical compromise.Warning signs that an organization is creating conditions for misconduct.Why lawyers handling confidential deal information are important gatekeepers.The need for law firms and law schools to strengthen training on insider trading risks.How prediction markets may create new risks for informed trading.Tom’s reflections on accountability, redemption, and the “integrity gap.”Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Tom Hardin on LinkedIn Tipper X Wired on Wall Street Raj Rajaratnam Convicted  Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

As climate change increasingly reshapes the way we live and do business, companies are facing a new reality: adapting to environmental risk is no longer optional. But alongside the challenges are significant opportunities. In this episode, Adam Orford, associate professor of environmental law and policy at Fordham Law School, explores the growing intersection of business law and climate change, and what it means for the future of business. We examine whether businesses may have more power than governments to drive meaningful environmental change and the growing international demand for clean energy. Adam also considers the potential role of nuclear energy in addressing climate change, and why climate concerns extend far beyond traditional environmental policy. From the environmental costs of war to the rapid expansion of AI and data centers, Adam explores the unexpected ways business, technology, and geopolitics intersect with the climate crisis. Ultimately, we consider how climate change concerns all of us, and why collective action remains one of the biggest obstacles to meaningful solutions. Tune in for this fascinating discussion. Key Points From This Episode: The moment in environmental law and business that we are currently living through.How Adam Orford honed his expertise in environmental law and policy.Who he represented while practicing corporate law: energy developers, non-profits, and governments.Do businesses have more power to protect the environment than the government? The growing international demand for clean energy.Considering the actual impact of environmentally friendly business practices. How nuclear energy development is beneficial to climate change.Why war is linked with climate change — the short- and long-term environmental cost.What we really have to be concerned about with AI.How data centres affect the environment.Considering the most optimal response to the threat posed by data centers.The democratic discourse that has emerged in response to the AI conversation.Why climate change concerns every state and nation.How collective action challenges prevent climate change solutions.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Adam Orford Adam Orford Fordham Law Adam Orford LinkedIn Article on COP29 UN Convention Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

When every mass-tort claimant has the same voting power, can bankruptcy still deliver a fair settlement? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we welcome Wake Forest Law Professor Samir Parikh and Fordham Law Professor Richard Squire to examine how claimant farming can distort mass tort bankruptcies. Samir is a nationally recognized expert in mass tort restructurings and editor-in-chief of the Bloomberg Law Bankruptcy Treatise, and Richard is an expert in bankruptcy and corporate restructuring. Together, they explain why the vote is meant to restore agency to victims and how the current system can undermine that promise. They discuss traditional voting rules and the nominal one-dollar valuation approach used when courts face tens of thousands of uncertain claims. Samir and Richard unpack how low-value or nonmeritorious claims, weak powers of attorney, and third-party litigation finance can combine to outweigh stronger claims. They also explore why bankruptcy remains attractive for mass tort resolution, where its safeguards are breaking down, and what courts and lawmakers can do before the next wave of claims arrives. Tune in to discover who benefits from the current system, who risks being left behind, and how mass tort bankruptcy voting can better protect the claimants who have suffered the most. Key Points From This Episode: Discover why voting is vital to claimant agency in mass tort settlements.Learn how Chapter 11 voting balances the number and value of claims.Explore why courts give mass tort claims a nominal one-dollar value.Uncover how courts determine whether claims are meritorious.Examine why claimants owed no recovery should be treated as rejecting a plan.Consider when attorneys have the authority to vote for their clients.Understand how third-party litigation finance can increase the number of weak claims.Hear about Samir’s proposed solutions for filtering claims and improving voting.See how claimants could challenge a decision under his proposed AI review process.Find out how bellwether trials could help courts value representative claims.Compare bankruptcy with multidistrict litigation and individual trials for resolving mass torts.Whether proposed legislation addresses the problems in mass tort bankruptcies.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Samir Parikh Samir Parikh on LinkedIn Richard Squire Richard Squire on LinkedIn 'Mass-Tort Voting Takes Center Stage' Brook Gotberg on The Price of “Global Peace” in Purdue Pharma Brook Gotberg and Richard Squire on Purdue Pharma II Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Welcome to the 100th episode of the Bite-Sized Business Law podcast! In celebration of this milestone, the president of Fordham University, Tania Tetlow, joins us to discuss the business of running a university. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about President Tetlow’s life, her professional background, how running a university is similar to running a business, her mission-driven role, and more! She goes on to discuss the importance of pulling leadership from within faculty ranks before talking about how educational institutions can stay agile in an unpredictable world while maintaining their core principles. We even touch on the Pope’s insightful letter about artificial intelligence. Finally, President Tetlow shares the biggest challenge she has faced in her role so far and leaves law students interested in business with some important advice about the potential impact they can make in the world.  Key Points From This Episode: Welcoming President Tania Tetlow to the show and an overview of her journey.How her career and upbringing prepared her to run a university. The similarities between running a business and running a university. Mission-driven educational leadership versus business management. How she trains faculty to run the university smoothly.What higher education needs to do to stay agile in the face of political pressure, social media, and a shifting workplace due to AI. President Tetlow’s thoughts on the Pope’s letter about artificial intelligence. The biggest challenge President Tetlow has faced at Fordham University.Advice for business law students about their ability to make an impact.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Tania Tetlow Office of the President Tania Tetlow on LinkedIn Pope Leo's Encyclical on AI Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

South Dakota has turned itself into the ‘trust fund capital’ of America, and the system is thriving financially. Some proponents say the South Dakota trust fund regime is absolutely necessary for those with mega-wealth, but others argue that it’s eroding the American tax base, enabling the hollowing out of the middle class, and defying the trust Teddy Roosevelt knew Americans had in each other. Author and investigative journalist Leah McGrath Goodman unpacks her report, ‘Inside America’s Race to Hide the World’s Money.’ Tuning in, you’ll hear all about Leah’s life and career, where the estate tax originated in the US, what a trust is, why South Dakota started trying to attract wealthy individuals to direct their money there, and more. We delve into how people who don’t actually live in the state can take advantage of its tax system before discussing the benefits of South Dakota’s privacy laws. Leah goes on to touch on the biggest concerns she uncovered when reporting about the South Dakota trust machine, and she shares some potential solutions to these issues. Finally, our guest tells us what other states are trying to ‘copy’ South Dakota’s structure. Tune in now for this fascinating discussion!  Key Points From This Episode: Introducing Leah McGrath Goodman and an overview of her background. The history of the estate tax in the US and what a trust actually is. What motivated South Dakota to attract wealthy people to direct their money there. How people who don’t live in South Dakota can take advantage of this system. A breakdown of some of South Dakota’s privacy laws and how they’re beneficial. What South Dakota, as a state, gains from utilizing a system like this. The main concerns that arose in Leah’s reporting about the SD trust system.A few of the benefits of the South Dakota trust empire on the economy as a whole.Leah breaks down some potential solutions to some of these issues.  Who originally came up with this structure and which states are trying to emulate it too.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Leah McGrath Goodman Leah McGrath Goodman on LinkedIn 'Inside America’s Race to Hide the World’s Money' Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

How do you put a price on companies that could reshape entire industries? Today on Bite-Sized Business Law, we welcome ‘the Dean of Valuation,’ Professor Aswath Damodaran, to explain the methods behind the valuations of large companies. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about how price and value differ, the importance of taking ownership of your decisions as an investor, how Professor Damodaran has valued SpaceX and why it has been valued so high. We delve into the wild valuations of AI and the effects of the technology on society, before discussing how to invest in an industry that might have no good outcome. Professor Damodaran even touches on the future of AI in law and shares his thoughts on how AI can be compared to the dot-com bubble. Finally, our guest shares his hopes and concerns for the future of technology and challenges listeners to rediscover their capacity to think outside the box. You don’t want to miss this one, so be sure to press play now!  Key Points From This Episode: Welcoming Professor Aswath Damodaran to the show. The difference between value and price, and his valuation of SpaceX. An explanation of how and why SpaceX has been valued so high. The potential problems SpaceX may face and the advantages it has. Why AI has as much value as it does, and the cost of use and production. Some detrimental effects AI may have, and how to invest considering that. The future role of AI in law and lawmaking, in our guest’s opinion. Professor Damodaran shares his thoughts on comparing AI to the dot-com bubble. Why he’s hopeful about the future, and what technological factors concern him.  How Professor Damodaran’s teaching has had to change because of these issues. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Aswath Damodaran  Aswath Damodaran at NYU Aswath Damodaran on LinkedIn Aswath Damodaran on YouTube The Aswath Damodaran Bot Another Aswath Damodaran Bot Professor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: Beat Your Bot Professor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: The Imitation Game Professor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: AI Scenarios   Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Prediction markets are surging in popularity, allowing users to bet on everything from elections and military action to awards and celebrity news. But when traders have information the rest of the market does not, where is the line separating useful forecasting from unlawful conduct? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we speak with Joshua Mitts, the David J. Greenwald Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, about the legal questions surrounding informed trading in prediction markets. Joshua is the co-author of ‘From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets,’ which examines suspicious trading patterns across prediction platforms. Joshua explains how prediction markets work, why informed traders help them produce meaningful results, and when an information advantage becomes legally or socially concerning. He walks through case studies involving suspicious trading across national security, politics, major institutions, and celebrity news, and how confidential information can create major profits while also threatening national security, privacy, and institutional integrity. We also explore why traditional insider trading law does not apply to these markets, how the misappropriation doctrine may apply, and why anonymous blockchain wallets make enforcement difficult. Tune in to explore where prediction markets are heading and whether the law can keep up. Key Points From This Episode: Introducing Joshua Mitts and his research on informed trading in prediction markets.Learn what prediction markets are and how their event contracts work.How blockchain technology has made prediction platforms more accessible.Discover the difference between informed trading and traditional insider trading.Hear why informed traders are vital for prediction markets to function.What made the trading before the U.S. attack on Iran seem unusually well-timed.Explore why the case studies in his paper raise concerns beyond national security.Discover how prediction markets can incentivize hacking and illegal data trading. Unpack why existing insider trading laws do not apply easily to prediction markets.Why prediction markets make illegal trading difficult to investigate and prosecute.Find out how identity checks and greater platform oversight could help regulators.Uncover why bans are not the solution and what upcoming legislation would change.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Joshua Mitts Joshua Mitts on LinkedIn Joshua Mitts on X ‘From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets’ Polymarket Kalshi Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

The debate over ExxonMobil’s new retail investor voting program is raising important questions about shareholder participation and corporate power. In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we examine ExxonMobil’s new approach to retail shareholder voting, which supporters say gives retail investors a stronger voice, while critics argue it could consolidate management power and limit the influence of activist investors. Christina Sautter, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law, explains how the program is designed to address low participation among retail investors and how it works in practice. She discusses the promise of greater participation, while also examining why engagement may not actually increase, the risk of investor inertia, and the concentration of managerial power. The conversation also explores Exxon’s move to Texas, the implications for shareholder rights, and why other companies may adopt similar voting programs. Tune in for a closer look at one of the most controversial developments in shareholder voting. Key Points From This Episode: Introducing Christina Sautter and Exxon’s new retail voting program.The challenge of low retail investor engagement in shareholder voting.A breakdown of how Exxon’s new retail voting program works.Discussing whether the program increases engagement or simply increases votes cast.Unpacking concerns about shareholders voting before seeing meeting agendas.Criticism that the program creates a permanent pro-management voting bloc.Exxon’s response to criticism of the program.The connection between the voting program and Exxon’s move to Texas.How Texas corporate laws could affect future shareholder rights.Why Christina expects other public companies to adopt similar programs.Existing legal challenges and the future of shareholder democracy.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Christina Sautter Christina Sautter on LinkedIn Christina Sautter on X NYC Comptroller Letter ExxonMobil's Response ‘The Shareholder Democracy Lie’ Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

The recent changes the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has made have shaken up the public market in a way that could permanently reshape the balance of power between companies and investors. Today on the Bite-Sized Business Law Podcast, we welcome Walker Newell to discuss the SEC’s big reset and its effects on investors, businesses, and their advisors. In this conversation, you’ll hear all about Walker’s career, his time at the SEC, and his unexpected foray into D&O insurance. We delve into the shareholder proposal rules and how things have changed before discussing the SEC’s new proposal to end quarterly reporting and how Walker thinks companies will react. We then discuss the mandatory securities arbitration issue and what companies must consider before adopting such a clause. Finally, Walker talks about future developments within this area and shares advice for young professionals about how his time working in government informed and influenced the rest of his career. Thanks for tuning in!  Key Points From This Episode: Welcoming Walker Newell to the show. A brief overview of his background and his time at the SEC. Walker breaks down the shareholder proposal rules. What has changed within the SEC this year after the shutdown. Walker tells us about the brand-new proposal the SEC put out regarding quarterly reporting. What the Mandatory Securities Arbitration issue is and how companies should be thinking about it.Finding a balance between shareholders and management. How Walker’s time at the SEC influenced his career. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Walker Newell on LinkedIn SEC Comment Page for Semiannual Reporting Proposal  Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

AI is already reshaping legal work, but not in the way most people expect. In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we speak with Francisco Morales Barrón, an M&A partner at Vinson & Elkins and member of the firm’s AI Task Force, about how he is actively using AI in high-stakes dealmaking rather than simply theorizing about its future. The conversation begins with how Francisco responded to early caution within his firm by taking the lead on exploring AI while also teaching a law school course on generative AI in corporate law. He highlights how these tools allow lawyers to go deeper into their work, not just get things done faster, while reinforcing the need for careful human review. As the discussion unfolds, Francisco explores the broader implications for the legal profession. He shares his perspective on potential displacement of lawyers, as well as the surprising opportunities created by AI, before breaking down the pressure AI puts on traditional law firm economics and how firm structures may evolve. The episode also covers ethical duties, client expectations, and how to rethink training for young lawyers in the age of AI. Tune in for Francisco’s firsthand insights on how AI is changing M&A from the inside out! Key Points From This Episode: An introduction to Francisco Morales Barrón and his work in AI and M&A.How Francisco joined his company’s AI task force and what his work entails.Their pilot program for different AI tools, and how they chose to fully deploy Harvey.Details on how Francisco is using AI tools for specific aspects of his work in M&A.The importance of human review despite improving AI capabilities.How AI enables deeper analysis across contracts and deal materials.Unpacking how AI could displace lawyers while also creating new opportunities.Shifting attitudes among law students and younger lawyers.Ongoing experimentation with AI tools and why firms remain in pilot mode.Ethical duties and client expectations when using AI in legal work.How AI challenges traditional billing models and law firm economics.Concerns about training junior lawyers in an AI-driven environment.Rethinking training: moving toward an apprenticeship model with more direct mentorship.Tasks likely to be automated versus skills that remain human-driven. Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Francisco Morales Barrón on LinkedIn Harvey Opinion 512 | American Bar Association (ABA) Unreasonable Hospitality Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

The New York Commercial Division has become a premier forum for resolving complex business disputes at the center of the world’s financial capital. Today we speak with James Catterson, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop and former associate justice of the Appellate Division, First Department, who also served as a trial judge and now sits on the Commercial Division Advisory Council. Learn why the Commercial Division was created to keep high-value corporate disputes in New York and how federal-level developments contributed to that migration. Jim sheds light on the Commercial Division assignment criteria, the distinctions between practicing in the Commercial Division and in federal district courts, and how the court ultimately benefits both litigants and the state of New York. Jim also discusses the role of the Advisory Council, current issues facing the Commercial Division, and Jim’s perspective on growing competition among states for business courts. Listeners will come away with a clearer understanding of how the Commercial Division operates and what litigators, in-house counsel, and business leaders should know about this influential forum, along with Jim’s practical advice for young lawyers. Key Points From This Episode: An introduction to our guest, James Catterson, partner at Pillsbury Winthrop.From the trial bench to years on the Appellate Division, First Department, and now the Commercial Division Advisory Committee.Jim sheds light on the migration of commercial issues away from the Southern District of New York to the New York State Commercial Division. How developments at the federal level contributed to that migration.Jim outlines the New York Commercial Division and the criteria for assignment.How appeals get from the Commercial Division to the Appellate Division.The big distinctions between practicing in the Commercial Division vs the federal district courts.He sheds light on how much of his practice emanates from the Commercial Division.How the Commercial Division benefits both litigants and the state of New York. Jim explains how the Delaware Chancery Court has streamlined their operations.The selection process for Commercial Division judges. How appellate division judges are appointed. Jim talks about the Commercial Division’s advisory council and its mission.The push to advocate for more judgeships.Jim shares his thoughts on Dexit and the competition among states for business courts.His advice to recent graduates and young lawyers interested in business law.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: James Catterson James Catterson on LinkedIn The New York Commercial Division Commercial Division Advisory Council Appellate Division, First Judicial Department Judith Kaye Delaware Court of Chancery Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Can constitutional democracy survive the age of AI, or are we handing over governance to systems the law was never built to handle? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law Podcast, host Amy Martella sits down with Margaret Hu, Davison Douglas Professor of Law and Director of the Digital Democracy Lab at William & Mary Law School, to explore the intersection of AI and constitutional law. Margaret shares her journey from the Civil Rights Division post-9/11 to becoming one of the first scholars in AI law, as well as the release of her groundbreaking textbook on AI Law and Policy. She explains why AI is not just a technology but a potential competing constitutional force, and why legal frameworks must return to the first principles of democracy, rights, and accountability to prevent a move toward unconstitutional governance. They also delve into the EU AI Act, state-led regulatory efforts, the gaps in the U.S legal framework, the Anthropic-Pentagon controversy, and the risks of allowing national security to override constitutional checks and balances. Tune in to learn why building rights-first AI frameworks is essential to protecting democracy with Margaret Hu. Key Points From This Episode: Margaret’s background in civil rights and how it led her interest and eventual scholarship in AI and algorithmic decision-making.Why AI governance cannot be separated from data privacy, surveillance, and cybersecurity.The decade-long push behind Margaret’s groundbreaking textbook: AI Law and Policy.Learn why AI is not just a technology, but a potential competing governance force.Explore why AI legal frameworks should be built from first principles rooted in democracy.Discover how AI could weaken America’s constitution. Unpack the debate between sector-specific AI rules and horizontal AI laws in general.Hear what the EU AI Act gets right, where it falls short, and how the U.S is borrowing from it.Why Margaret is skeptical about anthropomorphizing AI.Understand the common misconceptions around regulation and its impact on innovation.The Pentagon-Anthropic issue and what it shows about AI, military contracts, and power.She shares her outlook for AI laws and regulations under the current administration.Advice for young lawyers on navigating an increasingly AI-shaped legal future.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Margaret Hu Margaret Hu on LinkedIn AI Law and Policy William & Mary Law School Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Today, the long-running legal battle over Elon Musk’s Tesla pay package reaches its final chapter. In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, Amy Martella is joined by Richard Squire, Professor of Business Law at Fordham and faculty director of the Corporate Law Center, to unpack two pivotal Delaware Supreme Court decisions: ‘Tornetta v. Musk’ and ‘Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC’. Together, these cases bring the Musk saga to a close while reshaping the broader landscape of Delaware corporate law. The conversation begins with the Chancery Court ruling in ‘Tornetta’ that struck down Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package and the failed attempt to reinstate it through a second shareholder vote. Richard explains how on appeal, the Delaware Supreme Court took a narrower path, focusing on the remedy sought by plaintiffs rather than the breach of fiduciary duties, ultimately restoring the pay package while awarding only nominal damages. From there, the discussion turns to ‘Rutledge’ and the constitutional challenge to Delaware’s controversial SB21 legislation. The episode explores how the Court upheld the law, what it means for controlling shareholders, and how both decisions reflect the legal and political forces shaping Delaware’s role as the leading jurisdiction for corporate law. Listen in for a clear breakdown of these intertwined cases and what they mean for corporate governance going forward! Key Points From This Episode: ‘Tornetta v. Musk’ and the final chapter of the Musk pay package saga.A breakdown of Musk’s Tesla pay package and its extreme performance targets.Why the Chancery Court struck down the package for fiduciary breaches.Explanation of rescission and what it means to rescind an agreement.The second shareholder vote and attempt to ratify the pay package.Why the Chancery Court rejected the second vote as ineffective.How the case reached the Delaware Supreme Court on appeal.The Court’s focus on the remedy sought by the plaintiff.Why rescission was deemed impossible after years of Musk’s work.Outcome: Musk keeps the pay package with only nominal damages awarded.How SB21 created safe harbors for controlling shareholders.‘Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC’ and its challenge to SB21.Why the Supreme Court upheld SB21 as fully constitutional.How political and economic pressures shape Delaware’s decisions.Insights on SB21’s ambiguity and its broader impact on Delaware law.Reflections on the outcome and questions about fairness and shareholder benefit.Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode: Richard Squire Richard Squire on LinkedIn Tornetta v. Musk (Supreme Court) Tornetta v. Musk (Chancery Opinion II) Tornetta v. Musk (Chancery Opinion I) Rutledge v. Clearway Energy Group LLC Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center