Share
Ipse Dixit
Akshaya Kamalnath on Indian Bankruptcy Law
In this episode, Akshaya Kamalnath, incoming Lecturer at the Auckland University of Technology School of Law, discusses her article, "Corporate Insolvency Resolution Law in India – A Proposal to Overcome the ‘Initiation Problem’" forthcoming in the University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Review. She begins by discussing the history of India's corporate insolvency law, explaining how the experience of the Sick Industrial Companies Act of 1985 and the collection of statutes that regulated insolvency of limited liability corporations led to a distrust in the Debtor in Possession Model for bankruptcy. She then outlines the new law regulating corporate insolvency, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which transformed restructuring into a creditor-focused model and created a new efficient structure of initiating the insolvency process. However, she explains that the creditor-focused model of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code has led to a reticence on the part of corporations to initiate the process prescribed in law, as company directors often lose control of corporations to creditors.
Kamalnath notes that this 'initiation problem' is due to the structure of many Indian companies, which are owned by family groups whose promoters that raised money during the corporation's establishment continue on to leadership positions within the organization. She notes that these promoters have few incentives to lose control of their companies, and are often part of larger groups that have great influence on the financial, governmental, and business sectors. As a solution to this problem, Kamalnath looks to the corporate law of Australia and the United States, finding that Australian corporate law has the alternate problem of excessive incentives for managers to enter the insolvency process. She finds a better model in American corporate law, proposing a "modified Revlon duty" upon managers to accept the highest offer for a company when soliciting bids in the pre-insolvency phase, regardless of organizational changes demanded by bidding firms. And she concludes that the Indian parliament has proven itself willing to amend gaps in corporate law, suggesting that future legislation could insert the "modified Revlon duty" into existing law regulating the duties of directors. Kamalnath is on Twitter at @Akamalnath.
This episode was hosted by Luce Nguyen, a college student and the co-founder of the Oberlin Policy Research Institute, an undergraduate public policy organization based at Oberlin College. Nguyen is on Twitter at @NguyenLuce.
More episodes
View all episodes
803. Oliver Traldi on Political Beliefs
55:23||Season 1, Ep. 803In this episode, Oliver Traldi, a John and Daria Barry Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the James Madison Program at Princeton University, discusses his new book "Political Beliefs: A Philosophical Introduction," which is published by Routledge. Here is the description of the book:Anyone who’s had an argument about politics with a friend may walk away wondering how this friend could possibly hold the beliefs they do. A few self-reflective people might even wonder about their own political beliefs after such an argument. This book is about the reasons that people have, and could have, for political beliefs: the evidence they might draw on, the psychological sources of their views, and the question of how we ought to form our political beliefs if we want to be rational.The book’s twenty-four chapters are divided into four larger parts, which cover the following: (1) the differences between political and other types of beliefs, (2) theories of political belief formation, (3) sources of our political beliefs and how we might evaluate them, and (4) contemporary phenomena – like polarization, fake news, and conspiracy theories – related to political beliefs. Along the way, the book addresses questions that will arise naturally for many readers, like:Does the news you choose to watch and your own social media leave you stuck in an “information bubble”?Are you committed to a certain ideology because of the history of your society?Are people who believe “fake news“ always acting irrationally?Does democracy do a good job of figuring out what’s true?Are some political beliefs good and some evil?As the book investigates these and other questions, it delves into technical, philosophical topics like epistemic normativity, the connection between belief and action, pragmatic encroachment, debunking arguments, and ideology critique. Chapter summaries and discussion questions will help students and all interested readers better grasp this new, important area on the border of politics and philosophy.Traldi is on Twitter at @olivertraldi. The PDF version of his book is available for free on the Routledge website.This episode was hosted by Elizabeth Schiller, who is the Staff Director for the Virginia Access to Justice Commission.802. Alison LaCroix on the Interbellum Constitution
36:47||Season 1, Ep. 802In this episode, Alison L. LaCroix, Robert Newton Reid Professor of Law, Associate Member of the Department of History at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses her new book, "The Interbellum Constitution: Union, Commerce, and Slavery in the Age of Federalisms," which is published by Yale University Press. LaCroix explains what made interbellum America unique and what we can learn from interbellum constitutional thought. She describes the unique features of interbellum constitutional ideology and reflects on what it can tell us about constitutional thought today.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.801. Naomi Sunshine on Reclaiming German Citizenship
27:13||Season 1, Ep. 801In this episode, Naomi Sunshine, a director in the Public Interest Law Center and Supervising Attorney in the Immigrants Right Clinic at NYU Law School, discusses the process of reclaiming German citizenship under Article 116 Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, which provides for the restoration of German citizenship to former German citizens deprived of their German citizenship due to “political, racial, or religious grounds” in the time period from January 30, 1933 to May 8, 1945, and their descendants. One of the primary purposes of Article 116 was to restore the German citizenship of denaturalized German Jews. Sunshine describes her family story and explains the process of applying for German citizenship under section 116. She also describes the experience of becoming a German citizen. Here is a link to the application for German citizenship under Article 116.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.800. Henry Oliver on Late Bloomers
32:07||Season 1, Ep. 800In this episode, Henry Oliver, a writer, speaker, and brand consultant based in London, discusses his new book, "Second Act: What Late Bloomers Can Tell You About Reinventing Your Life." Oliver begins by explaining what he means by a "late bloomer" and what their stories can tell us about success. He discusses many historical examples of late bloomers, describing their similarities and differences. And he shares some strategies about achieving success later in life that we can glean from their examples. Oliver is on Twitter at @HenryEOliver. You can also subscribe to his Substanck The Common Reader.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.799. Phillips & Baumann on the Major Questions Doctrine & the SEC
38:28||Season 1, Ep. 799In this episode, Todd Phillips, Assistant Professor at the Georgia State University J. Mack Robinson College of Business, and Beau J. Baumann, a Ph.D. student at Yale Law School, discuss their article "The Major Questions Doctrine's Domain," which will be published in the Brooklyn Law Review. Phillips and Baumann begin by explaining what the major questions doctrine is, how it works, and why it's important. They describe how litigants are challenging SEC enforcement actions against crypto token using MQD-based challenges. And they explain why the MQD shouldn't apply to agency enforcement actions based on judicial interpretations of the scope of agency power, only an agency's own interpretation of its power in the context of legislative rulemaking. Baumann is on Twitter at @beau_baumann and Phillips is on Twitter at @tphillips.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.798. Matt Blaszczyk on Emergent Works & Copyright
39:16||Ep. 798In this episode, Matt Blaszczyk, an incoming research fellow at the University of Michigan Law School, discusses his article "Impossibility of Emergent Works’ Protection in U.S. and EU Copyright Law," which is published in the North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology. Blaszczyk begins by explaining the concept of an "emergent work," or work without a human author, a category of works of authorship that includes AI generated works. He describes several efforts to register emergent works for copyright protection and explains on why they have been unsuccessful. And he reflects on what the category of emergent works can tell us about the ontology and theory of copyright. Blaszczyk is on Twitter at @mmblaszczyk.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.797. From the Archives 114: Dupont's Cavalcade of America, The Constitution of the United States
21:28||Season 1, Ep. 797From 1935-53, the DuPont Company sponsored a radio program titled "Cavalcade of America." This episode dramatized the United States Constitution. The recording consists of three 78 RPM records, which were collected and digitized by the Internet Archive. Unfortunately, the B-side of the third 78 was too damaged to digitize.796. Beau Baumann on Americana Administrative Law
35:50||Season 1, Ep. 796In this episode, Beau Baumann, a PhD candidate at Yale Law School, discusses his article "Americana Administrative Law," which is published in the Georgetown Law Journal. Baumann describes the origins and history of the non-delegation doctrine and the major questions doctrine, explaining how both are rooted in an ideological fantasy of a Congress that never existed, ultimately in service of judicial self-aggrandizement. He reflect on how that happened, why it's a problem, and how scholars should understand it.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.795. Neoshia Roemer on Equal Protection & Indian Child Welfare
48:07||Season 1, Ep. 795In this episode, Neoshia Roemer, Associate Professor of Law at Seton Hall University School of Law, discusses her article "Equity for American Indian Families," which will be published in the Minnesota Law Review. Roemer explains what the Indian Child Welfare Act does, why it was created, and how some people are using equal protection arguments in order to challenge its constitutionality. She explains why ICWA is so important for both children and tribes, and why the criticisms of it are so misguided. Roemer is on Twitter at @ProfNRoemer.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.