In this corner, we have Stanford law professor Joseph Grundfest counterpunching earlier criticism by Yale law professor Jonathan Macey:
It takes some fancy footwork even to argue that the Harvard Proposal, with its glaring omissions, complies with SEC regulations. And, I am happy to concede that Professor Macey is a talented and clever dancer. But the problem with Professor Macey’s arguments in defense of the Harvard Proposal is that they get tripped up by the facts and the law.
Pow!
But back comes Macey with a combination of jabs and uppercuts:
As I explain below, the Reply reverses field and drastically modifies and weakens the authors’ allegations. Furthermore, in conceding some key points that I made and in failing to address some others, the Reply itself demonstrates that Gallagher/Grundfest wrongfully accused the SRP and should withdraw their allegations.
Kapow!
I jest, of course, but it really is a bit like watching a heavyweight fight. The difficulty that Joe and Jon now find themselves in, however, is that once you start one of these fights, you have to win.
