I'm not a huge fan of LBV port, preferring either twany or true vintage ports, but this one is pretty good. Deep ruby color. Very forward fruit, dominated by red cherry and plum. Oddly, I am reminded of my grandmother's fruitcake. Pleasant but not exceptional. Grade: B-
When last noted in 2010, I liked this wine a lot. Four years later it's not over the hill but it's definitely at the crest. Thin. Has shed most of its fruit but not replaced it with any interesting mature flavors or aromas. Still has some prunes and blueberry. Hint of VA on the finish. Grade: C
White & Case recently had a fascinating discussion of the impact sanctions are having on firms doing business in Russia:
On 24 June 2014 White & Case and PwC hosted a round table breakfast to discuss the effect of recent sanctions on financial institutions. Sir Andrew Wood gave a keynote address in which he considered the relevant macroeconomic and political factors that come into play when doing business in Russia in the current environment as well as the future prospects for business and investment in the region. He then led a discussion (under the Chatham House Rule) on the impact of sanctions against Russia and Ukraine together with sanctions experts from White & Case and PwC.
You can download an extended review of the program here.
Given the new sanctions the US just announced and the potential for even more sanctions if Russia turns out to be responsible for the downing of that Malaysian passenger jet, this is an especially timely program for business persons and the lawyers that advise them.
I liked this article a lot: Fisch, Jill E., The Broken Buck Stops Here: Embracing Sponsor Support in Money Market Fund Reform (June 16, 2014). U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 14-24. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2456255:
Abstract: Since the 2008 financial crisis, in which the Reserve Primary Fund “broke the buck,” money market funds (MMFs) have been the subject of ongoing policy debate. Many commentators view MMFs as a key contributor to the crisis, in part because widespread redemption demands during the days following the Lehman bankruptcy led to a freeze in the credit markets. The response has been to deem MMFs a component of the nefarious shadow banking industry and to target them for regulatory reform.
Determining the appropriate approach to MMF reform has proven difficult. Banks regulators prefer a requirement that MMFs trade at a floating NAV rather than a stable $1 share price. By definition, a floating NAV would prevent future MMFs from breaking the buck, but it is unclear that it would eliminate the risk of large redemptions in a time of crisis. Other reform proposals have similar shortcomings. More fundamentally, pending reform proposals could substantially reduce the utility of MMFs for many investors, which could, in turn, dramatically reduce the availability of short term credit.
The complexity of regulating MMFs has been exacerbated by a turf war among regulators. The Securities and Exchange Commission has battled with bank regulators both about the need for additional reforms and about the structure and timing of any such reforms. Importantly, the involvement of bank regulators has shaped the terms of the debate. To justify their demands for greater regulation, bank regulators have framed the narrative of MMF fragility using banking rhetoric. This rhetoric masks critical differences between banks and MMFs, specifically the fact that, unlike banks, MMF sponsors have assets and operations that are separate from the assets of the MMF itself. Because of this structural difference, sponsor support is not a negative for MMFs but a stability-enhancing feature.
The difference between MMFs and banks provides the basis for a simple yet unprecedented regulatory solution: requiring sponsors of MMFs explicitly to guarantee a $1 share price. Taking sponsor support out of the shadows provides a mechanism for enhancing MMF stability that embraces rather than ignoring the advantage that MMFs offer over banks through asset partitioning.
Remember Senior District Judge Richard George Kopf who told the SCOTUS to STFU? Apparently one of his keepers screwed up and let him near a computer, because he's back and, instead of responding on the merits to any of the folks who took him to task, the dummKopf has the balls to tell me to "grow up." This from the idiot who is a self-confessed "dirty old man" who blogged about how much he appreciated an attractive female lawyer who "wears very short skirts and shows lots of her ample chest."
I still think the judge needs to take his own advice and STFU.
Update: And I have the same advice for the judge's left-liberal groupies who have been trolling my email and twitter feed.
Update 3: Althouse points out that the Judge's attack is not well grounded:
The "florid" post of Bainbridge's accused Kopf of "(thinly veiled) anti-Catholicism," which (understandably) irked Kopf. Kopf says Bainbridge cited no evidence, but the evidence was Kopf's own statement that all the Justices in theHobby Lobby majority are Catholic. That's some evidence, but not enough to meet the burden of proof in the courtroom Kopf has no knowledge of Bainbridge ever stepping into if somehow the question of Kopf's anti-Catholicism were an issue.
I'd say it's pretty damned good circumstantial evidence.
Update 3: The good judge has announced that he will be ignoring me from now on out. And it was just getting fun.
In the mid-1990s, the Supreme Court of Delaware resoundingly held that “nothing in a contract can override directors’ fiduciary duties,” holding invalid deal protection provisions in a contract between Viacom International and Paramount Pictures. Nearly a decade later, the Delaware Legislature trumped that judicial ruling, at least in cases for what in Delaware are termed “alternative entities” (Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and Limited Partnerships (LPs)). The legislative enactment did not set draftsperson as free as it might seem, giving absolute priority to freedom of contract. The reason is that the statute makes clear that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing still applies to LLC operating and limited partnership agreements. This article explores the question of how much application of the implied covenant results in application of fiduciary like concepts if not fiduciary duties themselves.
Personally, I am deeply skeptical that the implied covenant will prove to be much of a constraint on the behavior of members of LLCs and so on, but Doug's article makes some very valid and important arguments.
Being POTUS is the most important job in the world. You're supposed to be the leader of the free world (not that the current job holder seems very interested in that part of his duties). You wield the most powerful military in history, the biggest bully pulpit in the world, set domestic policy for the largest economy in the world, and so on and on.
We have seen in the last few years what a disaster one gets when one elects an inexperienced amateur, which brings me to that tweet.
Elizabeth Warren was a serious and deservedly respected bankruptcy law professor at Harvard. But she's only been in the US Senate since January 2013--less than 2 freaking years!--and has zero--as in nada, zilch, no--executive experience of any relevance.
I hope the Democrats at least have the good sense to nominate somebody with experience as a Governor or Mayor, so that their candidate has actually had some experience in doing executive things like, say, meeting a budget. At least that way their candidate will just have bad ideas, because bad ideas coupled with inexperience has not been very fruitful.
If you look over the stats closely, you'll notice that all of the members of his Law Professor Blogs Network are up between 35% and 350% in traffic over the last year, with most of the blogs increasing between 100% and 200%. At the same time, I have noticed my LPBN pages automatically refreshing when I leave the window open.
So I guess I'll lay out my views straightforwardly -- I don't see any real reason to have auto-refresh other than to boost traffic. I suppose that if I wanted to just open up the blog and let the auto-refresh do my work for me, I could be assured of getting the most recent content. But if I leave the window open to a blog, it's often because I am in the midst of working my way through the past blog posts and want to come back to it -- not to have to figure out where I was. It makes viewing a video over time impossible, as well (as Caron himself notes). And if I'm on the page of a particular post, I suppose I might like the refresh to show any new comments -- but that's a pretty niche desire. What's more likely, perhaps, is that a lengthy comment will get "vaporized" by the refresh rates, as this comment thread indicates. (A great post & comment thread, BTW!)
So is the refresh innovation a real improvement in the blogging experience, or just a way to boost traffic?
Whatever the motivation for the change may have been, I think it makes Paul's rankings meaningless. Because those of us who don't inflict auto-refresh on our readers will be at an inherent disadvantage, the rankings will have no correlation to merit or even readership rates.
Update: The comments section over at the original Prawfsblawg post by Matt Bodie has gotten quite interesting, to say the least.
Jeff's got a great post on the role practice experience ought to play in faculty hiring, of which I will (perhaps all too predictably) just excerpt the snippet about yours truly:
I do think there is something to requiring an aspiring full-time tenure track academic in a university or quasi-university setting to signal (to Brian Galle's point) what I would call a tolerance for, if not a commitment to, in the absence of a better term, "the life of the mind." (Put aside my belief that there are whole areas of practice now the exclusive domain of lawyers and law schools that could be taught and practiced without a three year traditional law degree, and the university model need not apply there any more than it does for barbers or chefs.) The person who comes to mind is my friend Steve Bainbridge, who quite publicly proclaims (often and loudly in a metaphoric way) his impatience with both "law and ..." and empirical legal studies and his preference to focus on the law. Nevertheless, I don't think you ever pick up from Steve a disdain for intellectual pursuit or think of him as anything other than a university professor. (You can pick up a lot of other clever disdain from Steve - that's why we who disagree with him so much still love him - but not disdain for thinking!)
Here's my take: A good law professor needs some practice experience, if only just to get acculturated to the profession into which s/he will be directing students for the rest of his/her professional life. More is probably better, although I think my shortish stint in practice has not been an obstacle to staying current or to being engaged with practitioners and the bench. It's mostly a matter of attitude, I think.
A good law professor also needs a commitment to the life of the mind. A commitment to doing serious but engaged scholarship of the sort that the bench and bar can't do but will find useful. A commitment to writing often and well. A commitment to keeping up to date with developments in your field OF LAW (not your law and fill in the blank field). A commitment to going where the evidence takes you. A commitment to not whoring yourself out as an expert witness or lobbyist. Mostly, a commitment to revel in the intellectual freedom this job allows. The law is an endlessly fascinating subject. A good law professor will commit to mastering some part of it at a level no judge or practitioner would ever have time to do.
Although this bottle has been impeccably cellared since I bought it from the winery on release, at just age 13 it was undrinkable. Vinegar ... and not very good vinegar at that. Which raises the question: What to do with the last 2 bottles in the cellar?