Response

Is the Staggered Board Debate Really Settled?: A Coda

Response

In Settling the Staggered Board Debate published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, we concluded that the staggered board is not in and of itself value-increasing or decreasing and that “the staggered board debate is . . . not about per se rules but whether the staggered board is right for individual firms.” We thought our conclusions settled the debate. We may have spoken too soon. In a response published in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, Professors Cremers, Sepe, and Masconale assert that our analysis is flawed for two reasons: First, that our results are “based on statistical tests that have ‘poor power,'” claiming that the methodology we used in Settling the Staggered Board lacked robustness and was predisposed to its conclusions; Second, that “the adoption of a staggered board is associated with a positive increase in firm value,” even taking into account the results in Settling the Staggered Board Debate. In this Response (our response to the response) we reject the argument that our previous results were driven by poor power. And as to the argument that the staggered board is, on average, still associated with an increase in firm value, these conclusions rely on suspension of the efficient market hypothesis, since our responders’ results only occur years after the publicly announced adoption of the staggered board. Ultimately, our results again support the conclusion that the staggered board in and of itself has no effect on average firm value, reaffirming our original conclusion that it is firm characteristics which drive prior studies with respect to staggered board value.

Read More

Unique Risk and Bankruptcy Valuation

Response, Uncategorized

Professors Ayotte & Morrison argue in their recent article from Volume 167 of The University of Pennsylvania Law Review that "the use of...

Read More

Making Sense of Immigration Law

Response

I want to thank both Clare Huntington and Peter Schuck for writing such thoughtful replies to my article, Immigration Law's...

Read More

The Unusual Man in the Usual Place

Response

I wish to express my warm thanks to Professors Stephanos Bibas, George Thomas, and Ron Wright for their thoughtful responses. I am pleased that my article generated such a stimulating exchange with scholars who have done such fine work in the field and from whom I have learned much, not only about substantive and procedural criminal law, but also about the importance of academic generosity and accessibility.

In Punishing the Innocent, I challenge the conventional perception that there is an innocence problem in plea bargaining. For the typical innocent defendant in the typical case (a recidivist facing petty charges), the best resolution is generally a quick plea in exchange for a light bargained-for sentence—an offer that is frequently available because prosecutors do not maximize sentence length in low-stakes cases. Accordingly, once an innocent defendant is arrested and charged wrongfully, the costs of proceeding to an imperfect trial often swamp the costs of pleading to lenient bargains. If there are innocence problems in our criminal justice system, they are problems traceable not to plea bargaining, but to biases that infect arrest, charge, and trial decisions. Because plea bargaining may be in the innocent defendant’s manifest best interests, the justice system should ensure that the innocent accused has equal access to bargaining and guilty pleas. Accordingly, I propose systemic reconception of false pleas as ethically accepted legal fictions.

Read More

Excluding Religion: A Reply

Response

Disputes concerning exclusions of religion have continued to flare up during the last year. A school district in New Jersey was sued for...

Read More
Close