Consciously Decoupling: A Response to Professors Barry, Hatfield, and Kominers

On Derivatives Markets and Social Welfare: A Theory of Empty Voting and Hidden Ownership represents a compelling addition to the still burgeoning discussion of the bifurcation of voting rights and ownership interests. The practice of decoupling the long-fused voting rights of shareholders from their underlying economic interests has become all too common with the explosive growth of financial derivatives. Decoupling challenges assumptions embedded in our capital markets, tests our system of corporate governance, and strains a regulatory regime based on disclosure. 

This short Response attempts to persuade the reader that decoupling is, by its very nature, more upsetting to the natural order than the authors concede. And, its persistence threatens the predictability and stability of the overall market. Regardless of whether a “core outcome model” suggested by the authors becomes generally accepted, any desirable regulatory framework must begin with an ironclad mandate for full and fair disclosure not easily side-stepped by derivatives. In addition, focus on a desirable explanatory model should not siphon attention from efforts underway to improve the quality and depth of the information available to market participants.

Saving the IRS

The current controversy involving the IRS’s administration of the exempt organization (EO) tax laws is simply the latest in a long succession of similar questions spanning at least five decades. This essay proposes addressing the problem through increased transparency of the IRS’s administrative actions involving EOs. Opening up more decision-making to public scrutiny would tend to deter IRS misbehavior, reduce suspicions of such misconduct, and promote fuller communication both to establish impropriety and avert false charges against the agency. 

A Critique of the Corporate Law Professors’ Amicus Brief in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) effected numerous changes in the legal regime governing health care and health insurance. Among the ACA’s more controversial provisions is the so-called contraceptive mandate, which requires employer-provided health care insurance plans to provide coverage of all FDA approved contraceptive methods.

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases, in which the shareholders of two for-profit, family-owned corporations argue that requiring them to comply with the contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Forty-four corporate law professors filed an amicus brief in these cases, arguing that the essence of a corporation is its “separateness” from its shareholders and that, on the facts of these cases, there is no reason to disregard the separateness between the shareholders and the corporations they control. The Brief is replete with errors, overstated claims, or red herrings, and misdirection.

Contrary to the Brief’s arguments, basic corporate law principles strongly support the position of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. In particular, the doctrine known as reverse veil piercing provides a clear and practical vehicle for disregarding the legal separateness of those corporations from their shareholders, and thus granting those shareholders standing to assert their free exercise rights.