Why is nobody pointing out the obvious: Trump wants to use the massive new ballroom to hold huge fundraising dinners for his personal benefit? (He’ll say it’s fine because he paid for it with private donations, but he doesn’t give a damn what you think).

Sinclair deserves every punishment that can be lawfully inflicted upon them. They are truly awful wastes of carbon. Also, they are spineless weasels.

I would go further. Every blue state should pass a “stand your ground” law stating that anyone wearing a mask and refusing to show ID should be deemed a threat and can properly be subjected to lethal force in self-defense.

I have two children applying to law school. It really does scare me.

Ridiculous. As Piketty shows, making illiquid investments with professional managers has consistently produced outsized returns on college endowments. That Brown and Northwestern readily borrowed vast amounts proves that liquidity is not a problem for them.

Still enough material here for Judge Becker to have written a 20+ page opinion had he been given a chance. (I clerked for Judge Stapleton, many moons ago with Leo Strine, so I probably should have been more on the ball with my late night spitballing).

Thanks. Wow, really makes me happy (happier) that my practicing days are behind me. What is there left for junior associates to do?

In truth, the more I think about it the weaker the claim gets, as the deal seems to be in the company’s best interests (at least in the short term) as a way of escaping Trump’s repugnant pressure tactics.

I defer to your expertise esp on plaintiff side, but the claim need not be limited to saving Tan’s hide. Couldn’t it also be based on effectively making a payoff to curry government favor? Granted, the disingenuous “sale” of stock technically cost Intel nothing, but it is highly dilutive.

Tan is indeed on the board — he left in 2022 but rejoined in March 2025. I don’t think the board per se is presumed independent, but an ad hoc committee of independent directors may have reviewed and approved the agreement. Still not a dispositive defense, though.

It is true that the share price seems to have jumped on the announcement, which is problematic for any damage case. But it only takes one shareholder to act derivatively, and one may well take the position that Intel is injured by bribing Trump to save their CEO and curry government favor.

I guess Alan thinks the Masterpiece Cake decision only allows food vendors to refuse service to gay couples.

I don’t want any of those abusive fundraising texts anyway. I’m tired of being relentlessly punished for the sin of having donated to Democratic candidates in the past. Aren’t they aware of the disincentives they’re creating?