Issue 4

The Untenable Case for Perpetual Dual-Class Stock

The desirability of a dual-class structure, which enables founders of public companies to retain a lock on control while holding a minority of the company’s equity capital, has long been the subject of a heated debate. This debate has focused on whether dual-class stock is an efficient capital structure that should be permitted at the time of initial public offering (“IPO”). By contrast, we focus on how the passage of time since the IPO can be expected to affect the efficiency of such a structure.

Our analysis demonstrates that the potential advantages of dual-class structures (such as those resulting from founders’ superior leadership skills) tend to recede, and the potential costs tend to rise, as time passes from the IPO. Furthermore, we show that controllers have perverse incentives to retain dual-class structures even when those structures become inefficient over time. Accordingly, even those who believe that dual-class structures are in many cases efficient at the time of the IPO should recognize the substantial risk that their efficiency may decline and disappear over time. Going forward, the debate should focus on the permissibility of finite-term dual-class structures¾that is, structures that sunset after a fixed period of time (such as ten or fifteen years) unless their extension is approved by shareholders unaffiliated with the controller.

We provide a framework for designing dual-class sunsets and address potential objections to their use. We also discuss the significant implications of our analysis for public officials, institutional investors, and researchers.

The Fox Searchlight Signal: Why Fox Searchlight Marks the Beginning of the End for Preferential Treatment of Unpaid Internships at Nonprofits

While the Department of Labor has said that unpaid internships at charitable nonprofits are “generally permissible,” Fox Searchlight signals that charitable nonprofits can no longer rely on Fact Sheet #71 for protection. The Labor Department is only entitled to Skidmore deference for this document, and its assertion of protection in Fact Sheet #71 contains no justification for the sweeping exception that it announces. The Fact Sheet is therefore unlikely to persuade courts that the Labor Department’s stance is correct.

This Note predicts that arguments for preferential treatment of nonprofits proffered by authors such as Tucci, Bianci, and Harthill will fail in the courts. This Note stands alone in forecasting massive liability for the 40% of unpaid internships hosted by charitable nonprofits in the United States today. Once a nonprofit or an employee is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the clear intent of Congress as articulated by the Court (as well as the Department of Labor in the context of the volunteer exception) is to draw exceptions to coverage as narrowly as possible. On top of these textual and precedent-based arguments, plaintiffs have strong public policy arguments that the continued existence of the exception encourages inefficiency, distorts the labor market, creates uncertainty, and privileges whites and elite institutions at the expense of racial and ethnic minorities. At the very least, interns at charitable nonprofits should no longer have to fend for themselves in a completely unregulated market. This Note recommends that charitable nonprofits curtail their unpaid internship programs and calls on the Labor Department to withdraw its unsupported guidance in Fact Sheet #71. It would be as easy as deleting a footnote.

Taking the Path Less Travelled: FOIA’s Impact on the Tension Between the D.C. Circuit and Vermont Yankee

The battle looked to be over; the smoke had all but cleared. Vermont Yankee—wherein the Supreme Court announced that the APA established the “maximum” procedural requirements for informal rulemaking—ostensibly brought the steady advance of judicial innovation and oversight in the regulatory state to a halt. Since Vermont Yankee was decided, however, the D.C. Circuit has continued the offensive and treated the case as a mere bridgehead. More specifically, the D.C. Circuit remains steadfast in its use of the pre-Vermont Yankee case Portland Cement to oblige agencies engaged in notice-and-comment rule making to abide by disclosure rules that cannot be found in the text of the APA or any other organic statute. Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the D.C. Circuit recently examined this apparent conflict and determined that Portland Cement stands on “shaky legal foundation” due to its dearth of statutory roots. Judge Kavanaugh’s assessment is not sui generis. In fact, few other seemingly inconsistent decisional lineages have sparked as much commentary on the APA. In an attempt to further pollinate the landscape of the current battleground, this Note journeys along the path laid down by Judge Kavanaugh and discovers a textually grounded alternative to Portland Cement. If the D.C. Circuit heeds Judge Kavanaugh’s advice and overturns Portland Cement, interested parties could simply file FOIA requests to obtain the information Portland Cement requires agencies to disclose. The goal of this Note is to explore and uncover the practical and legal consequences of a disclosure regime anchored in FOIA, and with any luck change the stakes of the debate.

©Virginia Law Review Association. All rights reserved.