tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post8183969083315901437..comments2023-10-25T08:48:10.533-07:00Comments on Reading, wRiting and Running: What are folks actually working on?Tedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03339749938654424112noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-15283447375370153172012-11-24T07:14:35.391-08:002012-11-24T07:14:35.391-08:00Not serious, exactly. Bankruptcy deals with "...Not serious, exactly. Bankruptcy deals with "creditor interest." Anticompetitive behavior is not viewed as a "creditor interest." Happy to read a draft. Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339749938654424112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-24983924886735889452012-11-23T07:53:53.521-08:002012-11-23T07:53:53.521-08:00Thanks for this, Ted. If bankruptcy is serious ab...Thanks for this, Ted. If bankruptcy is serious about competition policy, or if competition policy can seriously be injected into bankruptcy, this reduces to comparative institutionalism. Once my finals are written I'm working on this full-time. I hope you'll be willing to view a draft?Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722786211652015559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-88426723336303819072012-11-22T09:45:46.086-08:002012-11-22T09:45:46.086-08:00We should definitely talk!! Your concern looms la...We should definitely talk!! Your concern looms large in a 363 sale where they buyer is a competitor. There are some hooks within bankruptcy to consider the "public interest." You might ant to look at Judge Gerber's DBSD case, where votes of a competitor (if I'm remembering correctly) were designated (disregarded). Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339749938654424112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-43197434455817417422012-11-22T09:36:39.499-08:002012-11-22T09:36:39.499-08:00Ted, I'd love to pick your brain about asset s...Ted, I'd love to pick your brain about asset sales (which leads to what I describe below).<br /><br />The file folder on Dropbox is named "Bankruptcy and Antitrust." The thesis is that antitrust merger policy is irreconcileable with mergers/sales of divisions in the course of Chapter 11. The question, which has bedeviled me for literally 2 years, is how to resolve the tension. Do we prefer the consumer interests, thus prioritize antitrust enforcement over bankruptcy estate maximization goals? Or do we prefer the ownership interests, including, of course, creditors -- and thus prioritize bankruptcy estate value maximization goals over antitrust policy? I now think the answer is both, depending which of those interests is less able to protect itself in bargaining. At one extreme consider a consumer goods manufacturer funded by a major bank lender. The constituents of the bankruptcy estate can bargain to protect themselves against losses when the manufacturer fails. The consumers are too diffuse and unsophisticated to do the same. At the other extreme is a manufacturer of component parts -- say aircraft engines -- owned by individual shareholders. The shareholders have little ability to protect themselves against the consequences of failure. The consuming interest there -- Boeing, in my example -- is amply protected.<br /><br />Ultimately, because antitrust offers the failing firm defense and bankruptcy has no mechanism for considering consumers' interests, I think the priorities are alphabetical.<br /><br />I hope this writes as well as I am envisioning!Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07722786211652015559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-68483781964326337422012-11-22T04:57:36.640-08:002012-11-22T04:57:36.640-08:00I've dialled down some of my published writing...I've dialled down some of my published writing due to my board positions on a couple of competition authorities, 1. due to propriety, and 2. because I've always written to try to influence policy and now I get to do what is v v cool (for a geek like me at least) which is help set policy, and so much of my writing now takes place inside the authorities, helping with leniency, penalties, settlements, decision-making, and other guidance we've been issuing. When I am out again though I can definitely say I want to write about agency governance and decision-making from a critical point of view, I just can't right now. I also want to write about mergers of competition authorities, because I was part of one "merger" in the Channel Islands this summer, and am still part of the OFT-CC "merger" and find parts of it fascinating. To answer your question though, this past summer I got some papers out on addressing unfair practices in retail chains looking at non-competition initiatives in the EU, and chapters on international cooperation, examining the increasing informality but effectiveness in this area.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11188188092395357436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-47709706539256794232012-11-21T23:35:10.722-08:002012-11-21T23:35:10.722-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.Philiphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11188188092395357436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1971897116861833908.post-15260330219445000352012-11-21T13:53:40.410-08:002012-11-21T13:53:40.410-08:00Two main projects are "off the stack" at...Two main projects are "off the stack" at the moment. A paper I am working on with Melissa Jacoby about expedited all asset sales in bankruptcy, and a paper with Susan Block-Lieb about consumer financial protection. Neither is quite ready for prime time yet, but hopefully soon. Tedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03339749938654424112noreply@blogger.com