Is American democracy starting to look more like corporate governance? In this episode we unpack the ways in which the language and logic of the boardroom are reshaping our political system to understand what happens when citizens are treated like shareholders and politicians act more like CEOs. Legal scholars Sarah Haan (Brooklyn Law School), Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci (Hofstra Law School), and Christina Sautter (SMU Dedman School of Law) explore the tangled history and present-day stakes of shareholder participation, corporate power, and regulatory capture. Join us as we trace how corporate governance evolved from a participatory ideal to a system that actively discourages engagement, especially when women became the dominant shareholder class. Together, we explore Prof. Ricci’s ‘Vitruvian Shareholder’ and ‘Total Governance’ frameworks, Prof. Sautter’s deep dive into corporate law’s origins in 19th-century New Jersey, and Prof. Haan’s compelling argument that corporate democracy is shaping political authoritarianism in real time. Tune in for a timely conversation on the hidden mechanics of power and the future of democratic participation in corporations and beyond!

Key Points From This Episode:

• How corporations shape our lives, even if we don’t play the stock market.
• Corporations as participatory systems: should we all be engaging?
• 'The Vitruvian Shareholder’ and balancing profit with values.
• ‘Total Governance’ and why shareholder activism is possible (and necessary).
• Shareholder passivity: how it evolved and why it matters.
• How corporate meetings have been designed to discourage participation.
• Gender, power, and the architecture of apathy.
• From robber barons to Delaware: the origins of regulatory capture.
• History repeating itself: how today’s shareholder laws mirror 1900s politics.
• Reasons that shareholder apathy is becoming increasingly inexcusable.
• How corporate power dynamics spill over into other spheres of civic life.
• The real model for authoritarian elections: corporate America.
• Insight into the dangers of modeling political democracy on corporate rule.
• What is so misleading about the term “shareholder democracy”.
• Founding the Center for Retail Investors & Corporate Inclusion.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Sarah Haan

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci

Christina Sautter

Sarah Haan on LinkedIn

Sarah Haan on X

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci on LinkedIn

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci on X

Christina Sautter on LinkedIn

Christina Sautter on X

‘Archeology, Language, and Nature of Business Corporations’

‘The Vitruvian Shareholder’

‘The Pathology of Passivity

'The Shareholder Democracy Lie'

'Delaware’s SB21 Continues 150 Years of Corporate Power and Regulatory Capture'

Can a CEO be too big to fail? In this episode of Bite-Sized Business Law, we dive into the volatility, legal wrangling, and power dynamics surrounding Elon Musk and Tesla with Ann Lipton, a leading scholar in corporate governance and business law and the Laurence W. DeMuth Chair of Business Law at the University of Colorado Law School. As Tesla’s stock swings wildly, Ann unpacks why Musk’s leadership is both the company’s greatest asset and its biggest liability. We explore the limits of shareholder power, the high-stakes Tornetta compensation case, and the board’s passive stance amid Musk’s increasingly controversial behavior, including his public spat and attempted reconciliation with President Donald Trump. From legal blind spots to governance breakdowns, this episode offers a timely look at how personality, politics, and corporate law collide in today’s markets. To hear what’s next for Tesla (and what it reveals about the future of corporate leadership), tune in today!

Key Points From This Episode:

• From civil rights dreams to securities law reality: Ann’s professional journey.
• Tesla’s rollercoaster stock volatility explained.
• Why Musk’s recent political antics spooked shareholders.
• The board can’t fire him, but can they rein him in?
• What CEO compensation packages are really for.
• Signs that the Tesla board is too close to Musk.
• The next pay package: a major test of board independence.
• Legal hurdles blocking shareholder lawsuits.
• How Tesla’s move to Texas weakens corporate accountability.
• Ways that Musk’s split focus puts Tesla’s future on the line.
• One CEO running multiple companies: a governance nightmare!
• Robo-taxis, hype, and the risks of reckless innovation.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Ann Lipton

Ann Lipton Blog

Shareholder Primacy Podcast

'The Legitimation of Shareholder Primacy'

Ann Lipton on LinkedIn

Ann Lipton on Bluesky

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Delaware may still be the gold standard for corporate law, but the Lone Star State is stepping up. In this episode, we explore how Texas is positioning itself as a serious alternative for corporate litigation and incorporation, as companies increasingly reconsider Delaware. Joining us is Michael Holmes, head of litigation at Vinson & Elkins and Vice Chair of the firm, whose practice spans both Texas and the Delaware Court of Chancery. Michael explains how recent legislative changes like SB21 have opened the door for states like Texas to compete, and how Texas is responding with its own business court system. He outlines key structural differences, including jurisdictional thresholds, term limits for judges, and early-stage rulings on director disinterestedness. The conversation covers whether Texas can replicate Delaware’s speed and infrastructure, and why its sheer size may complicate efforts to match Delaware’s efficiency. Michael also reflects on Texas’s emerging legal identity and what it might take to develop a meaningful body of state corporate law. Tune in to learn how Texas is carving out its place in the corporate litigation landscape and what that means for the future of business law!

Key Points From This Episode:

• Some background on Michael Holmes, his career, and how he came to work in litigation.
• How Texas is positioning itself as a challenger to Delaware for corporate litigation.
• Michael’s experience litigating in both Delaware and Texas courts.
• How SB21 could shift litigation dynamics for representative matters.
• Reflections on adaptability by the plaintiff’s bar and potential new litigation trends.
• Thoughts on the Dropbox constitutional challenge to SB21.
• An overview of the new Texas Business Court and how it is structured.
• Key differences between Texas and Delaware in jurisdiction and judicial terms.
• Pros and cons of two-year judicial terms in Texas business courts.
• How Texas is differentiating itself from Delaware and other options, like Nevada.
• Unpacking whether a large state like Texas can match Delaware’s speed and efficiency.
• Thoughts on how courts will interpret and develop new statutory frameworks.
• Why Texas and Delaware may coexist rather than compete exclusively.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Michael Holmes

Michael Holmes on LinkedIn
Vinson & Elkins

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center