I’ve been wondering what’s become of Psy. The post I saw on Lowering the Bar doesn’t help with that, but I can at least link to it as my small way of keeping alive the memory of the music video/dance phenomenon of the decade (as if you could forget it, right?).
The Lowering the Bar item is about a gang shootout that was allegedly incited by a “Gangnam Style dance-off,” but fails to note that you can’t spell “Gangnam Style” without “gang.”
At least one blogger, and a number of commenters on the blog where he posts, think that historic preservation of private property should be the sole province of the property owner.
That viewpoint is consistent with consistent with the more general opinion I have expressed about building aesthetics: if it’s private property, and there weren’t any rules in place regulating the building’s appearance when the owner bought it, then the owner I should be able to do pretty much whatever he or she wants to the appearance of the building.
I have written recently about the duties of corporate decision-makers. The issue was highlighted by a statement issued last month by the Business Round Table.
This post on the Columbia Law School’s blog gives the best explanation I have seen yet of the implications of the Business Round Table’s statement. Money quote:
Delaware law certainly permits boards to consider stakeholder interests and take a long-term view on how best to maximize corporate wealth. At the same time, it is clear that shareholders are the only constituency with a claim on Delaware boards’ fiduciary duties. Any evolution of corporate behavior in light of the BRT’s Statement will have to occur within the guardrails set by that reality.
And because virtually all major U.S. corporations are organized under Delaware law, their decision makers must follow Delaware law.
Via Professor Bainbridge.
Constitution Day is September 17. That’s the day in 1787 that the United States Constitution was signed by delegates to the Constitutional Convention.
Here’s a question to ponder for Constitution Day: would a federal wealth tax, suggested by some politicians, be constitutional? There are credible opinions on both sides of the question.
And while I’m on the subject of politicians’ tax proposals, it’s still crickets from that senator who said he wants a tax on unrealized capital gains. Remember I predicted that he would probably never provide the details of how his proposal would work? That’s because it won’t work.
Where, or how, does he find this stuff? Lowering the Bar found a story about a judge who, while presiding over a criminal trial, was caught driving the defendant’s Porsche, which the same judge had ordered to be seized before the trial. You can’t make this stuff up.
I should be quick to point out that this did not happen in the United States.
The judge claimed that he took possession of the car not because he wanted to use it, but because the police didn’t have a safe place to keep it. A higher court didn’t buy that explanation and suspended the judge.
Actually, the general subject of my August Estate Planning Law Report is something you should deal with, so that your loved ones don’t have to: instructions on funeral and burial. The situation that I hope you don’t have to confront is what happens if there is a disagreement about this often sensitive subject. If you deal with it, then there shouldn’t be any disagreement. Does that make sense?
In the Report I also provide information that I hope will be useful to you on the always timely topic of telephone scams. Regular readers know that’s a topic that I keep up with, because the scammers aren’t going to go away.
Read all about it in my Estate Planning Law Report for August, now posted in the publications section at deconcinimcdonald.com.
JUST BECAUSE A GROUP OF CEOS SAID THAT THE INTERESTS OF OTHER “STAKEHOLDERS” SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN CORPORATE DECISIONS DOESN’T MEAN THAT'S THE LAW
As Professor Bainbridge points out once again, the law is not what the CEOs say, or think it should be. Shareholder wealth maximization is the law. CEOs who act otherwise are endangering their own employment and the survival of their companies.
I readily concede that corporate social responsibility has its place, but only when it is consistent with the corporation’s duty to maximize the return on its shareholders’ investment.
I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE, AND I WILL SAY IT AGAIN: BUSINESSES DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE ANY “STAKEHOLDERS” OTHER THAN THEIR SHAREHOLDERS
Business corporations exist to create value for their owners by delivering goods and services. Period. I don’t care what some group of CEOs says to the contrary.
If those CEOs direct their corporations to serve the interests of parties other than the shareholders of their corporations, the market will respond negatively, and those CEOs will deserve to lose their jobs.
It’s no surprise that the idea of calling income tax exclusions and deductions “tax expenditures” came from a federal bureaucrat, is it? The idea is based on the notion, as explained in an article linked at the TaxProf Blog, that all income, with only certain theoretically defined exceptions, is the tax base.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.