Citizens for Judicial Fairness Slams Excessive Delaware Chancery Fees Following New Stanford Report
The findings were highlighted in The New York Times' DealBook newsletter, and arrive as more companies continue to question Delaware's value as the 'gold standard' for corporate law.
Citizens for Judicial Fairness released the following statement in response to the study:
'This study confirms what we've been saying for years: Delaware's Chancery Court is more interested in enriching lawyers than serving shareholders or protecting everyday investors. Two judges, Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick and Vice Chancellor Travis Laster, are responsible for a majority of these outrageous fee awards, and must be reined in so that litigants in Delaware's courts can have reasonable fee expectations. The pattern is clear: corporate insiders and well-connected firms are cashing in while Delaware's reputation burns. Delaware lawmakers can't look the other way anymore. These payouts aren't normal, and they aren't defensible. They're part of a system that's increasingly out of step with every other court in America. It's time for serious reform – and if Delaware won't fix it, the market will.'
The Stanford paper shows that two judges alone account for over 60% of the supersized awards, which often exceed ten times the base legal fee. In some cases, lawyers were paid nearly $50,000 an hour after inflation adjustment. No federal judge has ever come close to authorizing these kinds of fees.
Citizens for Judicial Fairness has long advocated for transparency, common-sense reform, and balance in the state's corporate legal system, and has warned that if left unchecked, judicial overreach will drive companies, jobs, and corporate revenue out of Delaware.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Geek Wire
6 hours ago
- Geek Wire
In AI we trust?
A recent study by Stanford University's Social and Language Technologies Lab (SALT) found that 45% of workers don't trust the accuracy, capability, or reliability of AI systems. That trust gap reflects a deeper concern about how AI behaves when the stakes are high, especially in business-critical environments. Hallucinations in AI may be acceptable when the stakes are low, like drafting a tweet or generating creative ideas, where errors are easily caught and carry little consequence. But in the enterprise, where AI agents are expected to support high-stakes decisions, power workflows, and engage directly with customers, the tolerance for error disappears. True enterprise-grade reliability demands more: consistency, predictability, and rigorous alignment with real-world context, because even small mistakes can have big consequences. This challenge is referred to as 'jagged intelligence,' where AI systems continue to shatter performance records on increasingly complex benchmarks, while sporadically struggling with simpler tasks that most humans find intuitive and can reliably solve. For example, a model might be able to defeat a chess grandmaster that is unable to complete a simple child's puzzle. This mismatch between brilliance and brittleness underscores why enterprise AI demands more than general LLM intelligence alone; it requires contextual grounding, rigorous testing, and continuous fine-tuning. That's why at Salesforce, we believe the future of AI in business depends on achieving what we call Enterprise General Intelligence (EGI) – a new framework for enterprise-grade AI systems that are not only highly capable but also consistently reliable across complex, real-world scenarios. In an EGI environment, AI agents work alongside humans, integrated into enterprise systems and governed by strict rules that limit what actions they can take. To achieve this, we're implementing a clear, repeatable three-step framework – synthesize, measure, and train – and applying this to every enterprise-grade use case. A Three-Step Framework for Building Trust Building AI agents within the enterprise demands a disciplined process that grounds models in business-contextualized data, measures performance against real-world benchmarks, and continuously fine-tunes agents to maintain accuracy, consistency, and safety. Synthesize: Building trustworthy agents starts with safe, realistic testing environments. That means using AI-generated synthetic data that closely resembles real inputs, applying the same business logic and objectives used in human workflows, and running agents in secure, isolated sandboxes. By simulating real-world conditions without exposing production systems or sensitive data, teams can generate high-fidelity feedback. This method is called 'reinforcement learning' and is a critical foundation for developing enterprise-ready AI agents. Building trustworthy agents starts with safe, realistic testing environments. That means using AI-generated synthetic data that closely resembles real inputs, applying the same business logic and objectives used in human workflows, and running agents in secure, isolated sandboxes. By simulating real-world conditions without exposing production systems or sensitive data, teams can generate high-fidelity feedback. This method is called 'reinforcement learning' and is a critical foundation for developing enterprise-ready AI agents. Measure: Reliable agents require clear, consistent benchmarks. Measuring performance isn't just about tracking accuracy, it's about defining what each specific use case requires. The level of precision needed varies: An agent offering product recommendations may tolerate a wider margin of error than one evaluating loan applications or diagnosing system failures. By establishing tailored benchmarks such as Salesforce's initial LLM benchmark for CRM use cases, and acceptable performance thresholds, teams can evaluate agent output in context and iterate with purpose, ensuring the agent is fit for its intended role before it ever reaches production. LLM benchmark Train: Reliability isn't achieved in a single pass — it's the result of continuous refinement. Agents must be trained, tested, and retrained in a constant feedback loop. That means generating fresh data, running real-world scenarios, measuring outcomes, and using those insights to improve performance. Because agent behavior can vary across runs, this iterative process is essential for building stability over time. Only through repeated training and tuning can agents reach the level of consistency and accuracy required for enterprise use. Turning AI Agents Into Reliable Enterprise Partners Building AI agents for the enterprise is much more than simply deploying an LLM for business-critical tasks. Salesforce AI Research's latest research shows that generic LLM agents successfully complete only 58% of simple tasks and barely more than a third of more complex ones. Truly effective EGI agents that are trustworthy in high-stakes business scenarios require far more than an off-the-shelf DIY LLM plug-in. They demand a rigorous, platform-driven approach that grounds models in business-specific context, enforces governance, and continuously measures and fine-tunes performance. The AI we deploy in Agentforce is built differently. Agentforce doesn't run by simply plugging into an LLM. The agents are grounded in business-specific context through Data Cloud, made trustworthy by our enterprise-grade Trust Layer, and designed for reliability through continuous evaluation and optimization using the Testing Center. This platform-driven approach ensures that agents are not only intelligent, but consistently enterprise-ready. As businesses evolve toward a future where specialized AI agents collaborate dynamically in teams, complexity increases exponentially. That's why leveraging frameworks that synthesize, evaluate, and train agents before deployment is critical. This new framework builds the trust needed to elevate AI from a promising technology into a reliable enterprise partner that drives meaningful business outcomes.
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
‘WE'RE NOT LEARNING ANYTHING': Stanford GSB Students Sound The Alarm Over Academics
Stanford University front entrance. Linda A. Cicero/Stanford News Service , long considered among the most elite MBA programs in the world, is facing a storm of internal criticism from students who say the academic experience has fallen far short of expectations. In a series of interviews with Poets&Quants, current MBA students voiced concerns about outdated course content, a disengaged faculty culture, and a broken curriculum structure that they say leaves them unprepared for post-MBA careers — and worse, dilutes the reputation and long-term value of a Stanford degree by producing scores of grads unprepared for the modern world of work. 'We're coming to the best business school on Earth, and the professors can't teach,' says a rising second-year MBA student and elected member of the school's Student Association. 'We're not learning anything. The brand is strong, but there's nothing here to help you build discernible skills.' The student and their peers have been sounding the alarm to administrators, they say, but they've been met with resistance, delays, or indifference. At the core of their frustration is a belief that the school's curriculum has not adapted to the realities of a rapidly evolving business world. While some faculty members have been receptive and collaborative when students raise concerns, they say, others see teaching as a secondary priority, and administrators have been slow or reluctant to act. In speaking candidly to Poets&Quants, the students asked for anonymity to avoid repercussions in their student experience and employment prospects. (See 'AI Is Devaluing The MBA': Stanford Students Speak Out On Curriculum Lag & The Risk To The B-School's Brand.) Meanwhile, a senior member of the GSB's leadership team tells P&Q that they 'hear the students' concerns,' and new Dean Sarah Soule, who began her tenure in June, adds that 'This is an extremely important set of issues, which I take very seriously.' As an example of what's gone wrong, the rising second-year student points to Stanford GSB's required Optimization and Simulation Modeling classes. 'They feel like they were designed in the 2010s,' the student says. 'We're living in an AI age, but there's nothing here that reflects that.' The student describes courses where the ability to 'prompt well' or subscribe to a premium AI tool matters more than actual understanding. The student and others say they increasingly teach themselves material outside class because what's offered isn't novel or skill-building. One says that in a required course, they were offered little more than what amounted to 'a five-minute Excel tutorial' or 'teaching me how to use Copilot, not teaching me how to use data.' Students also raised concerns about the school's teaching culture. Several said that professors often treat teaching as a nuisance, a not uncommon critique at many B-schools because of the predominance of academic research. One faculty member reportedly told colleagues, 'If you're worried about the class you teach, you're doing it wrong.' In stark contrast with HBS's 'cold calling' method, where each student could be called on at any time to answer a question about a reading or synthesize the current material, professors will often send out a 'Room Temp' list the day before class, listing the five to seven people who may be called on in this manner. 'You know what that teaches the students?' one student asks. 'It teaches them that they don't have to read or prepare before class if they're not on the list. It teaches us that we don't have to learn.' GSB's curriculum is structured around core and 'Distribution' requirements that are meant to teach the students fundamental business concepts. The GSB's website describes the first-year curriculum as 'Designed to make sure you're ready for anything and everything— to build your analytical foundation and intuitive skills to succeed in whatever comes next.' But the students who spoke with P&Q say these requirements are uncoordinated and incoherent. For example, when choosing 'Distribution' requirements, students must choose from a narrow menu of around 15 electives — some of which overlap, like two courses on online marketplaces, but none on foundational business strategy. 'Nearly everyone took 'Strategy Beyond Markets,' which is about influencing governments to allow you to do business,' the student says. 'And the only reason many of us took this is because it was one of the few 'Distribution' classes that had seats.' The most popular classes, they say, are often out of reach. One student recounts that one of the in-demand Distribution classes, Financial Restructuring, filled almost immediately — but first with second-year MBA students and then with first-years. 'How can you have a system where you can ONLY take from a choice of 15 classes, but seats aren't guaranteed to you? It's insanity.' Stanford uses a lottery system that randomly assigns students priority numbers to enroll. 'I put a class at the top of my list and still did not get in,' the student says. 'You're paying $250,000 and might not get a single class you came here for. Sounds unlikely, but it happens all the time.' Even classes that are filled during 'Super Round,' a pre-registration lottery that lets the highest-demand classes fill first, there are no guarantees: The student points to high-demand electives like Product Market Fit, taught by a well-known investor, that routinely shut out more than half of interested students. 'They know the class is gold. Why isn't the school offering more sections?' Even lower-demand courses, such as Graham Weaver's Managing Growing Enterprises, fill before the first draft of Super Round closes. 'Getting into Stanford was enough of a lottery. I'm shocked that I'm here and still unable to register for classes I want,' the student says. The rising second-year student and Student Association member shares results from Stanford GSB's own winter student survey, which show a sharp drop in those who agree with the statement, 'My classes are interesting and engaging.' 'This is the lowest it's been in two or three years,' the student says. 'It's a 2.9 on a 5-point scale. The floor is 1. Would you ever buy something from Amazon with 2.9 stars?' The student rejects the notion that Stanford GSB students aren't interested in learning. After all, these are high-achievers who earned admission to the most selective B-school in the world: Last fall the GSB admitted just 6.8% of 7,295 applicants. 'It's not that Stanford picks people who don't care about academics,' they say. 'It's that the academic experience is just that bad. Stanford doesn't admit duds. They admit fireworks, then forget to light the fuse.' The student and their peers in the Student Association have proposed changes — revamping the core curriculum, reforming the Distribution system, expanding popular classes — but say those proposals are often dismissed by deans unwilling to expend political capital. With a new dean, Sarah Soule, having officially began her first term in June, students hope the window for change may be opening. 'This could be the moment to fix things,' the rising second-year student says. 'But someone has to listen. 'If leadership doesn't act now, we're going to lose more than just student satisfaction. We're going to lose the value of the degree.' For now, the student and others are seeking to make their voices heard — through media, alumni outreach, and direct appeals to the administration. As the student puts it: 'We're not trying to burn the place down. We love it here. We just want it to be worthy of the name.' Asked to respond to a list of the issues laid out by GSB students, Anne Beyer, senior associate dean for academic affairs, tells P&Q in an email that 'We hear the students' concerns. The new leadership team at the GSB has only been in place for a little over a month, and I can assure you that we have a commitment to our students and curriculum. I took on this role because I care deeply about the student experience and the academic journey at the GSB. Dean Sarah Soule and I take these recent comments seriously, and addressing them is a top priority for our team. 'At the same time, it's important to recognize that some aspects of the student experience — particularly in the first year — are intentional by design. The first year is meant to establish foundations so the students are prepared for the rigor and relevance of the extraordinary elective curriculum that follows in the second year. This structure has been in place for decades, and it underpins the learning experience we aim to provide at the GSB. 'We are hopeful that as our current students progress through our program, they will continue to value this foundation — just as many alumni do. We continue to hear from our graduates how impactful these courses have been in their careers and lives.' And Dean Sarah Soule adds: 'This is an extremely important set of issues, which I take very seriously. Senior Associate Dean Anne Beyer is the absolute right choice to take on the challenges in the MBA program, curriculum, and student experience.' More to come: Future stories in this series will explore perspectives from more Stanford GSB students, including international students, who are concerned about declining academic rigor at one of the world's premier MBA programs. DON'T MISS and The post 'WE'RE NOT LEARNING ANYTHING': Stanford GSB Students Sound The Alarm Over Academics appeared first on Poets&Quants. Solve the daily Crossword
CBS News
3 days ago
- CBS News
Federal court strikes down California ammo background checks, sparking gun safety debate
Gun control efforts in California took a big hit on Thursday as the 9th Circuit Court struck down a state law requiring background checks to buy ammunition. While some say this is a step back for gun safety, others believe this is part of common-sense gun laws. The 2015 mass shooting at a San Bernardino County office killed 16 people, including both shooters who carried out the attack. The next year, California voters supported Proposition 63, which required background checks for those buying ammunition. "To me, it's peculiar," said John Donohue, a Stanford Law Professor. "It really is a peculiar feature that these two federal judges are striking down the will of the people as well as the will of the California legislature." Professor Donohue feels the law made sense since roughly 400,000 guns were stolen last year. "Guns are stolen all the time because gun owners leave them in unlocked cars very often," he said. "So, if you can at least pose a restraint when the bad guy goes to get the ammunition, you're screening out people who the law says should not be having access to firearms." Gun owner Bradley Stolfi from Cloverdale disagrees. He says he supports common-sense gun laws. He shared his thoughts with us when background checks on ammunition were first signed into law. "I think every firearm should require a background check, and it should be thorough," Stolfi said. Stolfi equates a background check for a firearm to getting a driver's license. He says once people pass that process, drivers are no longer required to get background checks every time they fuel up. He does, though, advocate for stricter training to become a gun owner since guns and ammunition have evolved since the 2nd Amendment was drafted more than 230 years ago. "I don't see any need for any magazine to be able to hold more than 10," he said. "That's going to get me in a lot of trouble with guys I know, but that's what I think." While the 9th Circuit Court's decision will most likely be appealed, Professor Donohue wonders about the broader impact the decision will have on gun ownership. He says this might give gun lobbyists ammunition to attack background checks for firearm purchases. "Certainly, there has been an effort that has gotten support from the US Supreme Court to be very, very aggressive in implementing the Second Amendment in these types of challenges," said Professor Donohue. "Many things that I thought would not have been struck down have in fact been struck down."
