Lucian Bebchuk gets a well-deserved write up in the Harvard Law Bulletin, in which the author observes:
Bebchuk?s calls for [corporate governance] reform have struck a nerve, and he has no shortage of critics. Last year, for example, the Harvard Law Review published responses by Vice Chancellor Leo E. Strine Jr. of the Delaware Court of Chancery and UCLA?s Stephen Bainbridge to Bebchuk?s arguments for a greater shareholder role in governance arrangements.
Indeed, with all due deference to Prof. Bebchuk, I remain concinced that if his agenda for issues of federalism and corporate governance were to succeed, American business and the American economy would be the loser.
As I've noted before, Lucian's views on competitive federalism have been criticized by yours truly in The Creeping Federalization of Corporate Law, as well as by Steven Choi and Andrew Guzman, Jonathan Macey, and Robert a Romano. Lynn Stout and I have criticized Bebchuk's arguments for shareholder primacy in takeovers, as has student commentator Kevin Turner. Leo Strine and I criticized Bebchuk's proposals for shareholder empowerment, as have Martin Lipton and Mark Gordon. Core, Guay, and Thomas criticized Bebchuk's work on executive compensation, as have Jeff Gordon and I.
