The New York State Bar Association has spoken! An April report by its esteemed Task Force examines the legal, social, and ethical impact of AI on the legal profession, as well as how the new guidelines will impact businesses everywhere. In this episode, we interview one of the 16 members of the AI Task Force about his first-hand experience at the helm of developing this new frontier. Jonathan Armstrong is a Partner at Punter Southall Law in London, where his focus on compliance and technology positions him as one of the most influential figures in fintech, AI, and data security across the globe. Join us as Jonathan offers insights into the necessity of a global approach to combat the problem of AI-driven territory seizing and weighs in on different principles underpinning new laws. We discuss data training, what needs to happen to make data more trustworthy, liability exposure, why opting out of AI is not an option, and much more. Be sure to tune in to hear Jonathan’s answers to many of the most pertinent questions in the legal world today!

Key Points From This Episode:

• The recent NYSBA report on the impact of AI on the legal profession.
• Jonathan’s path to combining his dual passions for law and technology.
• His course on international compliance at Fordham Law.
• How Jonathan was chosen to sit on the AI Task Force.
• The issue of AI seizing territory and the necessity of having a global approach.
• Categorizing the principles beneath new laws.
• Inaccuracy in AI and its impact on access to justice.
• Challenges associated with which data AI should be trained on.
• What needs to happen to be able to trust the data produced by AI.
• Responsible use of AI in legal practice.
• Jonathan’s insights on liability exposure for AI with reference to corporate boards.
• Risk analyses that should be prioritized by corporate boards.
• Why opting out of AI is not a realistic option.
• Developing the skills necessary to establish your value as a young lawyer.
• What you need to know about the EU-required “Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments.”
• Identifying and remediating the risks of AI mediation.
• Testing AI integrations according to core values to set appropriate foundations.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Jonathan Armstrong

Jonathan Armstrong on LinkedIn

Report and Recommendations of the New York State Bar Association Task Force on Artificial Intelligence

Punter Southall Law

Task Force on Artificial Intelligence

Vivian Wesson on LinkedIn

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Today, we delve into the captivating world of white-collar crime to pose a question that almost no one is asking. This is not your typical true crime story, but rather one individual’s staggering fall from the C-suite to a prison cell. In this episode, we explore the best ways to punish white-collar crimes and debate whether or not jail is an appropriate or effective solution. Here to contribute his expertise is Fordham Law Professor and resident corporate law expert, Richard Squire. He joins us to share his perspective on the high-profile case of FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who was once lauded as a genius and a leader in the world of cryptocurrency, before being sentenced to 25 years in prison for defrauding customers and investors. Tune in to discover if the criminal justice system's four purposes are met by imprisoning white-collar criminals, the impact of reputational damage, potential alternatives to jail time, and insights into the sometimes severe penalties for insider trading. You’ll also learn about the political incentives for prosecuting white-collar crimes, particularly in emerging industries like crypto, and the conflicts of interest that lawyers should be aware of in these cases. This thought-provoking conversation is packed with valuable insights into corporate law and the ethical challenges of the business world, so be sure not to miss it!

Key Points From This Episode:

• Examples and statistics of the type of white-collar crimes we discuss in this episode.
• An exploration of the best ways to punish those who commit financial crimes.
• The case of Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) and FTX: a quick refresher on the details.
• Four purposes of the criminal justice system and whether they apply to SBF’s case.
• What constitutes “deliberate intent to deceive” in a fraud case; why it’s so difficult to prove.
• The strength of the case against SBF and questions regarding his long jail sentence.
• Details of the bankruptcy proceedings amidst SBF's legal battles: how this impacted their legal strategy and public perception of accountability.
• Whether or not imprisoning white-collar criminals serves the purposes of criminal justice.
• Pros and cons of the incapacitation that accompanies a prison sentence.
• Political motivations for prosecuting white-collar crimes, like insider trading, especially in emerging industries like cryptocurrency.
• A definition of insider trading and some better-known examples of it.
• Punishment for insider trading: is jail time appropriate or necessary?
• How wealth and public perception contribute to the severity with which a white-collar criminal is punished.
• Alternatives for punishing financial crimes, and when jail time is appropriate.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Richard Squire

Richard Squire on LinkedIn

United States v. Samuel Bankman-Fried

United States v. Matthew Kluger

Raj Rajaratnam Insider Trading Conviction

'Inside Insider Trading with Stephen Fishbein'

Amy Martella

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Dig in to the most compelling business law issues of the moment with host Amy Martella, the Executive Director of the Corporate Law Center at Fordham University School of Law. Bite-Sized Business Law tackles big issues in small doses through interviews with corporate attorneys, industry experts, public figures, and business law scholars. Stay informed and gain deeper understanding with invaluable insight on everything from financial meltdowns to emerging market trends. No issue is too big for Bite-Sized Business Law.

Is litigation funding driving the next big wave of mass tort cases and if so, what incentives does that create? Samir Parikh and Emily Siegel join the podcast today to help us explore the $15 billion litigation finance industry. Samir, a professor of corporate and bankruptcy law at Wake Forest Law, discusses the opaque nature of some financiers and their influence on mass tort litigation, often prioritizing profit over justice. Emily shares her perspective as a senior reporter at Bloomberg Law, highlighting the growing role of key players driving opaque capital – like sanctioned Russian actors operating as hedge funds – and the potential risks involved, including national security concerns. As financiers increasingly view mass tort disputes through the prism of an asset sale, they inevitably reshape the legal landscape, trigger ethical dilemmas for attorneys, and risk flooding the system with non-meritorious claims. Despite the controversies, litigation finance can level the playing field, offering a lifeline to claimants with legitimate cases. But as more money flows into mass tort disputes, less focus is placed on justice for victims. Tune in to explore the complexities and implications of litigation funding in mass torts and find out why transparency and regulation are more crucial than ever.

Key Points From This Episode:

• How litigation funding is driving mass tort cases.
• Introducing today’s guests, Samir Parikh and Emily Siegel.
• Key players driving opaque capital, including highly aggressive private equity firms.
• Samir's explanation of opaque capital financiers' profit motives.
• Why many modern tort cases more closely resemble asset sales than litigation.
• The risks that various parties face in mass tort litigation when it is funded by opaque capital.
• Emily’s findings on how Russian billionaires are avoiding sanctions by funding lawsuits.
• Why a lack of reporting requirements for funding litigation could pose a national security risk.
• Key questions raised by the Johnson & Johnson mass tort case and the potential of a future litigation regarding “forever chemicals.”
• The Daubert Standard in mass tort claims and the impact it has on funder decisions.
• Why mass torts are particularly attractive to litigation financiers.
• Ethical obligations in mass tort cases and how the attorney-client relationship is at risk.
• The impact of litigation funding on corporate defendants.
• A reminder that many legitimate financiers do a lot of good and the value that they add.
• How legitimate litigation financiers help meritorious claimants gain access to justice.
• The biggest risks posed by the new Arizona state law regarding mass tort cases.
• An overview of non-meritorious claims threatening system integrity.
• Why robust regulations and disclosures are necessary.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Samir Parikh

Samir Parikh on LinkedIn

Emily Siegel on LinkedIn
Bite-Sized Business Law Episode 30: The Opaque Capital Fueling Mass Tort Litigation

‘Opaque Capital and Mass Tort Financing’
'Putin’s Billionaires Dodge Sanctions by Financing Lawsuits (1)

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Go inside this most infamous financial crime with guest Stephen Fishbein, who has argued some of the most influential insider trading cases in modern history. Almost everyone, no matter your knowledge base, has an opinion about insider trading. And most peoples’ opinions are that it’s evil. But do you know exactly what insider trading is (not even Congress has defined it) and how you are affected by it? To help us dissect insider trading law and explain why we need to recalibrate our thinking around how we prosecute this white-collar crime, distinguished trial lawyer and partner at A&O Shearman, Stephen Fishbein, joins us. Stephen begins by explaining how his early career as a federal prosecutor serves him in the work that he does today in private law. Stephen describes the law’s ever-changing definition of insider trading, why Congress has yet to provide its own definition of insider trading, Dirks v. SEC’s establishment of the baseline, how United States v. Newman changed the law, and how the Blaszczak cases revealed a different side of insider trading. We also learn about shadow insider trading and the misappropriation theory, how political ambitions inside prosecutors’ offices have shaped insider trading law in America, what the law looks like in the rest of the world, and the dangers of not doing enough research on insider trading for you and your business. To end, we take a philosophical detour to debate whether insider trading is inherently good or bad and our guest shares his thoughts on what policymakers need to be doing more of to change the way insider trading is policed.

Key Points From This Episode:

• Stephen Fishbein's professional background and how he ended up at A&O Shearman.
• How his experience as a prosecutor influences the work that he does today.
• Understanding the main features of insider trading under Rule 10b-5.
• The basics of insider trading law as established in Dirks v. SEC.
• How (and why) United States v. Newman changed the law.
• Why Congress has thus far been reluctant to provide its own definition of insider trading.
• The Blaszczak cases: a different type of insider trading.
• The correlation between shadow insider trading and the misappropriation theory.
• How political ambitions inside the U.S. Attorney's Office have shaped insider trading law.
• Insider trading law in other countries.
• Whether insider trading is right or wrong on a philosophical level.
• What American lawmakers need to be thinking more about with regard to insider trading.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Stephen Fishbein

Stephen Fishbein on LinkedIn

A&O Shearman

‘Misappropriation Theory’

‘Title 15’

‘Dirk v. SEC’

‘United States v. Martoma’

United States v. Blaszczak I

United States v. Blaszczak II

Den of Thieves

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Corporate boards use their expertise to advance the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders. But they’re only human. What if we could create a board made up of entirely unbiased, indefatigable members who never falter and never tire? Today we explore the idea of inviting artificial intelligence into the boardroom with Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Sergio’s well-known paper, “Artificial Agents in Corporate Boardrooms,” has taken on new significance with the rapid progression of AI technology. Tuning in, you’ll hear about both the risks and rewards of introducing AI into the boardroom. We delve into what Delaware law has to say about legal personhood before Sergio discusses his concerns about having AI make decisions for companies and why the lack of AI accountability is problematic. We debate the risks around AI becoming sentient, and discuss whether new laws will be introduced to allow AI inside corporate boardrooms. Tune into this fascinating and informative episode today!

Key Points From This Episode:

• Welcoming today’s guest, Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci.
• How Sergio got interested in the idea of AI in the boardroom.
• How ancient Roman practices of using highly intelligent slaves translates to the use of AI in boardrooms.
• AI Governance Nirvana and how it could address the problem of agency costs.
• Why there will always be a place for humans in the boardroom.
• What Delaware law has to say about legal personhood when it comes to boards of directors.
• Sergio discusses the idea of accountability and why AI cannot be held accountable.
• Why Sergio is so concerned about AI becoming sentient.
• The effects of using AI to make decisions for companies.
• The likelihood of introducing new laws to make use of AI in boardrooms.
• Whether transparency about the use of AI in the boardroom would solve the legal roadblocks to using AI in the boardroom.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci on LinkedIn

Sergio Alberto Gramitto Ricci on X

‘Artificial Agents in Corporate Boardrooms’

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

American financier, Michael Milken, has been called many things, from the junk bond king to a criminal and a fraud. But he has also been credited as the most important person to alter the financial markets since JP Morgan, with some even estimating that he has created more wealth for shareholders than any financier in modern history. Milken is perhaps best known for his role in the development of the market for high-yield bonds, also referred to as junk bonds, and his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea on felony charges for violating US securities laws in 1990. Joining us today to discuss this important figure is Richard Sandler, Executive Director of the Milken Family Foundation, Director of the Milken Institute, and a personal lawyer to Michael Milken during his criminal investigation. We talk with Richard about his book, Witness to a Prosecution: The Myth of Michael Milken, and why he argues that Milken is one of the most misunderstood public figures of all time. Richard shares his insights on key events during this era, Michael’s true character, and the convoluted and unjust processes that led to his conviction. Tune in to hear the full story of Michael Milken from his personal friend and lawyer, Richard Sandler!

Key Points From This Episode:

• Some background on Richard Sandler and his legal career.
• How he came to work with Michael Milken at Drexel Burnham Lambert.
• Richard’s long relationship with Milken, beginning in childhood.
• His response to those who question his objectivity regarding Milken.
• A breakdown of high-yield bonds, also known as junk bonds, and how they work.
• Milken’s early interest in high-yield bonds and why he believed in their potential value.
• Why Drexel allocated capital to him to invest in new securities.
• Unpacking the disruption that Milken caused and how this upset Wall Street.
• An overview of Ivan Boesky, his role on Wall Street, and his conviction for insider trading.
• What it was like when Milken was formally charged.
• The unusual amount of publicity that this case received and the implications of this.
• A breakdown of the charges against Milken, the proceedings, and why Milken pled guilty.
• Why the criminal process is not a level playing field, no matter what your resources are.
• The deeply disruptive impact the case had on Milken and his young family.
• Key flaws in the prosecutorial system and assumptions of guilt.
• Richard’s respect for Milken’s lawyers and his take on punishment for non-violent crimes.
• What compelled him to write Witness to a Prosecution: The Myth of Michael Milken.
• Reflecting on Milken’s true character as a good and caring individual.
• What Milken is doing today and his many philanthropic endeavors.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Richard Sandler

Witness to a Prosecution: The Myth of Michael Milken

Michael Milken

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

The Milken Family Foundation

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center

Do shareholder proposals compel corporations to speak in ways that violate the First Amendment? Although shareholder proposals have been studied from numerous angles, the concept of compelled speech is fairly novel. And this question raises several other inquiries, including the nature of corporate purpose and the rationale behind negative speech rights in the first place. Joining us to discuss this fascinating proposition is Professor Sean J. Griffith, the T.J. Maloney Chair in Business Law at Fordham Law School, a former Director of the Fordham Corporate Law Center, and an expert in corporate and securities law. Tuning in, you’ll gain insight into Sean’s paper, ‘Shareholder Proposals and the Negative Speech Rights of Corporations’, how the shareholder proposal rule predominantly relates to sociopolitical issues rather than financial or company performance issues, and how it compels corporations to speak on controversial issues. We also touch on a corporation’s right to religious freedom, what companies can do to oppose shareholder proposals and much more, so be sure to listen in today!

Key Points From This Episode:

• What inspired Sean to write articles on shareholder proposals and corporate speech.
• Corporations that the shareholder proposal rule applies to and what it entails.
• How the shareholder rule (Rule 14a-8) has evolved since its inception.
• Ways that shareholder proposals compel corporations to speak on controversial issues.
• Supreme court cases that illustrate violations of companies’ First Amendment rights.
• Insight into how a company might seek exclusion from the SEC.
• The relationship between corporate negative speech rights and corporate purpose.
• Intrinsic interests, corporate souls, and the rationale behind negative speech rights.
• Whether or not every social “hot button” issue affects a company’s financial performance.
• How companies can seek to exclude shareholder proposals.
• Why existing policy arguments for and against shareholder proposals haven’t necessarily included First Amendment rights.

Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

Sean J. Griffith

Sean J. Griffith on LinkedIn

‘Shareholder Proposals and the Negative Speech Rights of Corporations’

'What’s “Controversial” About ESG? A Theory of Compelled Commercial Speech under the First Amendment’

Fordham University School of Law Corporate Law Center