Bite-Sized Business Law

Welcome to the 100th episode of the Bite-Sized Business Law podcast! In celebration of this milestone, the president of Fordham University, Tania Tetlow, joins us to discuss the business of running a university. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about President Tetlow’s life, her professional background, how running a university is similar to running a business, her mission-driven role, and more! She goes on to discuss the importance of pulling leadership from within faculty ranks before talking about how educational institutions can stay agile in an unpredictable world while maintaining their core principles. We even touch on the Pope’s insightful letter about artificial intelligence. Finally, President Tetlow shares the biggest challenge she has faced in her role so far and leaves law students interested in business with some important advice about the potential impact they can make in the world. 
Key Points From This Episode:
Welcoming President Tania Tetlow to the show and an overview of her journey.
How her career and upbringing prepared her to run a university. 
The similarities between running a business and running a university. 
Mission-driven educational leadership versus business management. 
How she trains faculty to run the university smoothly.
What higher education needs to do to stay agile in the face of political pressure, social media, and a shifting workplace due to AI. 
President Tetlow’s thoughts on the Pope’s letter about artificial intelligence. 
The biggest challenge President Tetlow has faced at Fordham University.
Advice for business law students about their ability to make an impact.
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Tania Tetlow
Office of the President
Tania Tetlow on LinkedIn
Pope Leo's Encyclical on AI
Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

South Dakota has turned itself into the ‘trust fund capital’ of America, and the system is thriving financially. Some proponents say the South Dakota trust fund regime is absolutely necessary for those with mega-wealth, but others argue that it’s eroding the American tax base, enabling the hollowing out of the middle class, and defying the trust Teddy Roosevelt knew Americans had in each other. Author and investigative journalist Leah McGrath Goodman unpacks her report, ‘Inside America’s Race to Hide the World’s Money.’ Tuning in, you’ll hear all about Leah’s life and career, where the estate tax originated in the US, what a trust is, why South Dakota started trying to attract wealthy individuals to direct their money there, and more. We delve into how people who don’t actually live in the state can take advantage of its tax system before discussing the benefits of South Dakota’s privacy laws. Leah goes on to touch on the biggest concerns she uncovered when reporting about the South Dakota trust machine, and she shares some potential solutions to these issues. Finally, our guest tells us what other states are trying to ‘copy’ South Dakota’s structure. Tune in now for this fascinating discussion! 
Key Points From This Episode:
Introducing Leah McGrath Goodman and an overview of her background. 
The history of the estate tax in the US and what a trust actually is. 
What motivated South Dakota to attract wealthy people to direct their money there. 
How people who don’t live in South Dakota can take advantage of this system. 
A breakdown of some of South Dakota’s privacy laws and how they’re beneficial. 
What South Dakota, as a state, gains from utilizing a system like this. 
The main concerns that arose in Leah’s reporting about the SD trust system.
A few of the benefits of the South Dakota trust empire on the economy as a whole.
Leah breaks down some potential solutions to some of these issues.  
Who originally came up with this structure and which states are trying to emulate it too.
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Leah McGrath Goodman
Leah McGrath Goodman on LinkedIn
'Inside America’s Race to Hide the World’s Money'
Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

How do you put a price on companies that could reshape entire industries? Today on Bite-Sized Business Law, we welcome ‘the Dean of Valuation,’ Professor Aswath Damodaran, to explain the methods behind the valuations of large companies. Tuning in, you’ll hear all about how price and value differ, the importance of taking ownership of your decisions as an investor, how Professor Damodaran has valued SpaceX and why it has been valued so high. We delve into the wild valuations of AI and the effects of the technology on society, before discussing how to invest in an industry that might have no good outcome. Professor Damodaran even touches on the future of AI in law and shares his thoughts on how AI can be compared to the dot-com bubble. Finally, our guest shares his hopes and concerns for the future of technology and challenges listeners to rediscover their capacity to think outside the box. You don’t want to miss this one, so be sure to press play now! 
Key Points From This Episode:
Welcoming Professor Aswath Damodaran to the show. 
The difference between value and price, and his valuation of SpaceX. 
An explanation of how and why SpaceX has been valued so high. 
The potential problems SpaceX may face and the advantages it has. 
Why AI has as much value as it does, and the cost of use and production. 
Some detrimental effects AI may have, and how to invest considering that. 
The future role of AI in law and lawmaking, in our guest’s opinion. 
Professor Damodaran shares his thoughts on comparing AI to the dot-com bubble. 
Why he’s hopeful about the future, and what technological factors concern him.  
How Professor Damodaran’s teaching has had to change because of these issues. 
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Aswath Damodaran 
Aswath Damodaran at NYU
Aswath Damodaran on LinkedIn
Aswath Damodaran on YouTube
The Aswath Damodaran Bot
Another Aswath Damodaran Bot
Professor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: Beat Your Bot
Professor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: The Imitation Game
Professor Damodaran's Blog Post on his AI Bot: AI Scenarios  
Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Prediction markets are surging in popularity, allowing users to bet on everything from elections and military action to awards and celebrity news. But when traders have information the rest of the market does not, where is the line separating useful forecasting from unlawful conduct? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we speak with Joshua Mitts, the David J. Greenwald Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, about the legal questions surrounding informed trading in prediction markets. Joshua is the co-author of ‘From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets,’ which examines suspicious trading patterns across prediction platforms. Joshua explains how prediction markets work, why informed traders help them produce meaningful results, and when an information advantage becomes legally or socially concerning. He walks through case studies involving suspicious trading across national security, politics, major institutions, and celebrity news, and how confidential information can create major profits while also threatening national security, privacy, and institutional integrity. We also explore why traditional insider trading law does not apply to these markets, how the misappropriation doctrine may apply, and why anonymous blockchain wallets make enforcement difficult. Tune in to explore where prediction markets are heading and whether the law can keep up.
Key Points From This Episode:
Introducing Joshua Mitts and his research on informed trading in prediction markets.
Learn what prediction markets are and how their event contracts work.
How blockchain technology has made prediction platforms more accessible.
Discover the difference between informed trading and traditional insider trading.
Hear why informed traders are vital for prediction markets to function.
What made the trading before the U.S. attack on Iran seem unusually well-timed.
Explore why the case studies in his paper raise concerns beyond national security.
Discover how prediction markets can incentivize hacking and illegal data trading. 
Unpack why existing insider trading laws do not apply easily to prediction markets.
Why prediction markets make illegal trading difficult to investigate and prosecute.
Find out how identity checks and greater platform oversight could help regulators.
Uncover why bans are not the solution and what upcoming legislation would change.
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Joshua Mitts
Joshua Mitts on LinkedIn
Joshua Mitts on X
‘From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets’
Polymarket
Kalshi
Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

The debate over ExxonMobil’s new retail investor voting program is raising important questions about shareholder participation and corporate power. In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we examine ExxonMobil’s new approach to retail shareholder voting, which supporters say gives retail investors a stronger voice, while critics argue it could consolidate management power and limit the influence of activist investors. Christina Sautter, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Law at the SMU Dedman School of Law, explains how the program is designed to address low participation among retail investors and how it works in practice. She discusses the promise of greater participation, while also examining why engagement may not actually increase, the risk of investor inertia, and the concentration of managerial power. The conversation also explores Exxon’s move to Texas, the implications for shareholder rights, and why other companies may adopt similar voting programs. Tune in for a closer look at one of the most controversial developments in shareholder voting.
Key Points From This Episode:
Introducing Christina Sautter and Exxon’s new retail voting program.
The challenge of low retail investor engagement in shareholder voting.
A breakdown of how Exxon’s new retail voting program works.
Discussing whether the program increases engagement or simply increases votes cast.
Unpacking concerns about shareholders voting before seeing meeting agendas.
Criticism that the program creates a permanent pro-management voting bloc.
Exxon’s response to criticism of the program.
The connection between the voting program and Exxon’s move to Texas.
How Texas corporate laws could affect future shareholder rights.
Why Christina expects other public companies to adopt similar programs.
Existing legal challenges and the future of shareholder democracy.
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Christina Sautter
Christina Sautter on LinkedIn
Christina Sautter on X
NYC Comptroller Letter
ExxonMobil's Response
‘The Shareholder Democracy Lie’
Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center