Comments on: Registration

By: Concurring Opinions

Concurring Opinions — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 06:42:10 +0000

Notice of Privacy Practices

A friend recently asked why we don’t have a privacy policy for this blog. We have a registration statement, after all, so why not a privacy policy? So without further ado, I present to you our shiny new privacy policy:…

By: M. Simon

M. Simon — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:15:31 +0000

The Ninth Circuit gave us Raich which forced the liberals to vote against compassion and the strict constructionists Conservatives to vote for Constitutional restraint.

I like them.

By: Kate Rears

Kate Rears — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 07:06:45 +0000

I deny any responsibility for the “recent comment” wrapping debacle. I suppose I, too, should draft my own statement about factors beyond *my* control!

By: murky

murky — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 02:39:53 +0000

This is a little beyond me. Could you just tell us your Morningstar rating?

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:36:11 +0000

Also, your recent comments don’t wrap in firefox and really strain your layout.

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:29:45 +0000

A number of factors, some of them beyond our control, could cause this offering to fail. Among these risks are…[that] [o]ur readers might wise up to the fact that blogging is silly.

I promise not to wise up if you promise to semi-regularly give me an opportunity to grouse about how terrible Kelo was.

Remember that a few years ago the Ninth Circuit, in In Re Provolone Partners, held that a ham sandwich is a security for 33 Act purposes.

With every passing year, one is forced to wonder whether the Ninth Circuit is an appellate court or a comedy routine. You couldn’t make this stuff up!

By: PrawfsBlawg

PrawfsBlawg — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 22:13:26 +0000

Concurring

This is just a quick note to mention that I will be concurring with Dan on his new blog, Concurring Opinions. (CO? CCO? CC:Opinions? I think we need a good short handle.) As the securities expert on the blog, I’ve been hard at work on the blog’s regist…

By: Kate Rears

Kate Rears — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:58:06 +0000

…because the authors aren’t responsible for most coding errors. I am. (Hi, and thanks for noting the error. Let me know if you notice any more! I’m well aware of some already, but watchful eyes will do us some good here.)

By: Discourse.net

Discourse.net — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:48:01 +0000

‘Concurring Opinions’ Blog Issues a ‘Registration Statement’

Concurring Opinions, a new blog which so far sports lawprofs Daniel Solove and Kaimi Wenger (strange bedfellows? could be interesting…) has announced itself to the world by publishing a Registration Statement, modeled, rather loosely, on the the ones…

By: The Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:44:10 +0000

Concurring Opinions:

My friend and colleague Daniel Solove has broken off of PrawfsBlawg and has started a new group blog, Concurring OpinionsMy friend and colleague Daniel Solove has broken off of PrawfsBlawg and has started a new group blog, Concurring Opinions

By: Michael Froomkin

Michael Froomkin — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 21:42:14 +0000

Fun! But please fix the link to your RSS feed at the top of the page.

PS. Why does risk factors leave out 'coding errors'?