Emma is second-year law student at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. A native of Alexandria, Virginia, she obtained her Bachelors of Science in 2016 from The College of William and Mary with concentrations in psychology and sociology.
Emma is pursuing a certificate in the Corporate and Commercial Law Program and her legal interests include contract drafting and negotiation and corporate social responsibility. Apart from academics, she cares greatly about feminist issues, particularly as they play out in the legal field, and is a member of the Colorado Women's Bar Association as well as the President of DU's Women's Coalition.
Outside of law school, Emma enjoys learning about and tasting wine, spending time with her cats, and planning her next travel adventure.
Connect with Emma on LinkedIn.
On September 20th of this year, fashion industry giants Michael Kors Holdings Limited (“Michael Kors”) and Gianni Versace S.p.A. (“Versace”) issued a joint press release announcing that Michael Kors would purchase Versace for $2.12 billion. (Katina Metzidakis, Business Wire). The transaction is expected to be completed in Michael Kors’ fourth quarter, which ends April 1, 2019. (Michael Kors Holdings Limited, 2018 Annual Report). When the transaction is complete, the company will be renamed Capri Holdings Limited (“Capri”), after the famed Italian island “long recognized as an iconic, glamorous and luxury destination.” (Katina Metzidakis, Business Wire). This post provides an overview of the transaction and its anticipated effects.
Vertical mergers, unlike more-litigated horizontal mergers, are governed by few guidelines from antitrust regulatory organizations and, until recently, had never been challenged in federal court. The approval of a vertical merger between AT&T and Time Warner (“The Merger”), despite protests from the Antitrust Department of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), has shed some light on merger control rules for vertical mergers. This post provides an overview of: (1) vertical merger laws; (2) The Merger; and (3) the governing principles that have emerged since the approval of the AT&T transaction. (Noah Brumfield, Antitrust & Trade Regulation Report (BNA)).
A Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) is an organization in which the traditional business management scheme is replaced by blockchain technology. While DAOs function like corporations in some ways, they replace board members with code and leave business decisions up to token-holders who exist as nodes along the blockchain. No single entity owns the DAO, and the organization’s day-to-day operations are executed via smart contracts. This note introduces readers to DAOs, provides insights into how major industry players and regulators are interacting with them, and speculates on how DAOs may influence the future of corporate law.
In Laborers’ Local #231 Pension Fund v. Cowan, No. 17-478, 2018 BL 85103 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2018), the court granted Rory Cowan and his co-executives’ (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss Laborers’ Local #231 Pension Fund’s (“Plaintiffs”) amended complaint. The court held Plaintiffs failed to state a claim in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) because they failed to allege “a misleading or false statement or omission” in the proxy statement.