Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMacey, Jonathan
dc.date2021-11-25T13:34:17.000
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-26T11:35:48Z
dc.date.available2021-11-26T11:35:48Z
dc.date.issued1995-01-01T00:00:00-08:00
dc.identifierfss_papers/1434
dc.identifier.contextkey1737098
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/658
dc.description.abstractIn a rare moment of self-restraint, I resolved not to bother to write a comment to David Ratner's spirited but unconvincing reply to my earlier article in the Cardozo Law Review. Since Ratner's response contained no defense whatsoever of the work of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), no criticism whatsoever of my general theory of agency obsolescence, and no theory of its own to defend the SEC, it seemed to me at first that the best course of action was to allow Ratner's reply to serve as its own refutation.
dc.titleA Rejoinder
dc.source.journaltitleFaculty Scholarship Series
refterms.dateFOA2021-11-26T11:35:49Z
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1434
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2453&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Rejoinder__A.pdf
Size:
630.9Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record