Daily Archives: January 17, 2008

Signs of a dying regulatory scheme

Posted on by
2

ncaa-logo%20011708.jpgRegular readers of this blog know that I believe the NCAA’s regulation of big-time college sports is hopelessly corrupt, albeit an entertaining form of corruption (see previous posts here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here).
That entertaining form of corruption is pretty valuable, too, as this Forbes List of the 20 Most Valuable College Basketball Programs reflects. And even at a top range of $25 million, the top basketball programs lag well behind the top football programs in value.
But one can only estimate how much these programs would be worth if they were unleashed from the obsolescent NCAA regulatory scheme. Particularly one that not only deprives its main income-generators from being paid their true value, but would open up an administrative investigation into an alleged regulatory violation involving a 97-year old icon:

Just before the start of this college basketball season, UCLA received a letter of inquiry from the NCAA, seeking information about possible illegal contact between a recruit and a person representing the interests of the university.
The recruit was Kevin Love, now the Bruins’ star freshman center.
The person representing the interests of the university was [legendary 97-year old former UCLA coach] John Wooden.
The NCAA has not disclosed who made the complaint.
Love and his family visited Wooden during his recruiting trip. They had a nice chat, Wooden teased the Loves’ young daughter, Emily, for being so quiet, and a nice time was had by all. [. . .]
. . . The NCAA, apparently shrugging off common sense and going with protocol, procedures and robot-ism, actually wrote a letter of inquiry to UCLA, requiring the school to investigate.

The fascinating “Flea”

Posted on by
Reply

Lindeman-759645.jpgEric Turkewitz interviews Dr. Robert Lindeman, the Boston-based pediatrician who caused quite a stir last year when the Boston Globe broke the story that he was the anonymous blogger nicknamed “Flea” who was blogging a medical malpractice trial while participating as a defendant. One of Dr. Lindeman’s answers even has a Houston twist:

A hypothetical question: You’ve been called for jury duty and the case involves a question of medical malpractice. What will you tell the attorneys during the jury selection process about your ability to sit impartially?
Answer: “I will tell them that Roger Clemens will admit to using performance-enhancing drugs before I will able to sit impartially on a malpractice jury.”

Stoneridge redux

Posted on by
Reply

Stoneridge%20011708.jpgThe blawgosphere’s analysis has been extensive and insightful in regard to the Supreme Court’s important decision Tuesday in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta (previous posts here), which upheld the Central Bank rule against holding third parties secondarily liable for damages for providing financing to a company that is found to have defrauded its investors. The Point of Law.com blog, which has been a leader in providing a forum for discussion of the issues in the case, provides links to many excellent commentators, including Professors Bainbridge and Ribstein, the latter of whom has this follow-up post to his initial one that is well worth reading.
Although the issues and policy implications involved in Stoneridge are easy to understand for those of us involved in business, it’s interesting how many people who are not involved in business on a day-to-day basis have asked me about the case and why I think it’s so important that the Central Bank rule be upheld. Why shouldn’t the banks that facilitated a company defrauding its investors not have to contribute something into the compensation pot for the investors, they inquire?
I have found that directing the folks asking that question to the practical example presented in this earlier post usually does the trick in explaining why erosion of the Central Bank rule is a manifestly bad idea.