The Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy (BCLBE) is the hub of Berkeley Law's research and teaching on the impact of law on business and the U.S. and global economies.

General Counsel Conversation Series

Brett Pletcher, SVP and General Counsel of Gilead Sciences

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Boalt Hall 141; 12:45-1:45pm

This is the kickoff for BCLBE's GC Conversation Series in which students will have an opportunity to meet with the SVP and General Counsel of Gilead Sciences and other chief legal officers of businesses to learn more about what the GC/CLO job entails, the comparisons between in-house and outside law firm practice, and how students and young lawyers can prepare for a career in either position. To allow maximum opportunity for conversation and Q&A, the lunch will be limited to 30 students. Registration will be on a first-come first served basis.


Law and Economics Workshop

Andrea Cann Chandrasekher, U.C. Davis, School of Law
Monday, September 15, 2014
Boalt Hall 132; 12:15-1:55pm

China's Antitrust Enforcement Program

Nathan (Nate) Bush, O'Melveny & Myers LLP
September 25, 2014
Boalt Hall 105; 12:55-1:55pm

Berkeley Law certifies that this activity has been approved for 1 hour MCLE credit by the State Bar of California.

Enforcement of China's Anti-monopoly Law surged in the last two years, with unprecedented penalties against foreign and domestic companies for price-fixing, resale price maintenance, and abuse of intellectual property rights. Antitrust scrutiny of international mergers has also intensified, with some transactions stalled and others thwarted by antitrust review in China. These enforcement trends reflect both the policy goals and the political incentives for regulators in Xi Jinping's China. Nate Bush, a partner in the Singapore and Beijing offices of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, will assess the antitrust challenges facing multinational companies operating in China.

Co-sponsored with the Center for Chinese Studies

Fundamentals of Banking Law

October 8-10, 2014
Bancroft Hotel, Berkeley

In collaboration with the Boston University School of Law, BCLBE is pleased to announce the sponsorship of Fundamentals of Banking Law (formerly Banking Law Basics), an intensive 2½ day program designed to familiarize participants with the basics of banking law, including the critical policies, concepts and regulations that have shaped 150 years of banking law from the passage of the 1863 National Bank Act to the present. Agenda>  Website> 

Berkeley Law certifies that this activity has been approved for 19 hours MCLE credit by the State Bar of California.

Managing Tax Audits and Appeals

October 23-24, 2014
San Francisco

In collaboration with Crowell & Moring, this two day seminar will discuss current issues that impact the tax audit process. Designed for those with an interest in tax controversies, this seminar will enable corporate and tax executives to expand their knowledge of key features of the audit process and to focus on opportunities to improve an audit’s outcome through proper management at the early stages and during the administrative appeals process. The focus will be on current developments in the audit and appeals process.

Speakers will include attorneys from Crowell & Moring, government representatives, and academics who will address emerging issues relating to National Appeals Office developments, large case audits, transfer pricing audits, and recent legislative changes relating to tax procedure and administration. Preliminary Agenda>

Berkeley Law certifies that this activity has been approved for 10 hours MCLE credit by the State Bar of California.

For a summary of past events, visit our events page. For videos of our events, go to our video library.

Recent Post on
The Network: Business at Berkeley Law

Family Dollar Rejects Takeover Bid by Dollar General
By Gisue Mehdi, J.D. Candidate 2015

Our Sponsors






In his column The Deal Professor, Prof. Steven Davidoff Solomon argues that when large companies muzzle their lawyers, wrongdoing can get swept under the rug, illustrating the problem with Walmart’s unfolding bribery scandal and General Motors’ ignition switch scandal.  He also examines the reasons behind Burger King’s acquisition of Tim Hortons doughnut chain in Canada and Burger King’s decision to move their headquarters.  He argues that a lower tax rate is not the driving factor, but that relocating is the natural choice because Canada is the biggest market for the combined company. To read more of Davidoff Solomon’s articles click here.

Disputes over German bonds issued during the Weimar era took decades to resolve, with some cases still in flux. In Back to the Past: Old German Bonds and New U. S. LitigationProf. Richard Buxbaum follows the trail of these financial instruments and the legal tactics used to settle international claims.

In the Deal Professor column, Prof. Steven Davidoff Solomon argued that the unsolicited offer for Chiquita Brands International by the Cutrale Group and the Safra Group illustrates the problems that tax inversions can create. He also wrote about how a buying spree among technology companies such as Facebook and Google has revolutionized the venture capital business model. In a later post, he discussed how the Zillow-Trulia acquisition deal puts bulk of risk on Trulia if regulatory restrictions are imposed. He also wrote about how the scandal over the ouster of Dov Charney from American Apparel shows the consequences of confidentiality agreements. To read more of Davidoff Solomon’s articles click here.

Prof. David Gamage comments on the Bay Area district’s proposal to use tax dollars for a private club house.

On July 9, Ken Taymor presented "From Corruption to Good Governance: Lessons from the FCPA and the OECD" at the Goldman School's Ethics and Governance executive education program. The program serves senior-level Indian government administrative officers responsible for making policy in areas such as education, health, transportation and energy.

In “Actavis and Error Costs”, Prof. Aaron Edlin et al. defend the position they took in “Activating Actavis” that payments from a patent holder to fend off litigation from a competitor should be suspect whenever the payment exceeds the cost of litigation and the competitor agrees to stay out of the market. Such “reverse payments” can too easily be a subterfuge for allowing the competitors to split profits even when the patent is of dubious value or validity. This position has been criticized by some economists as too easily marking legitimate, pro-competitive agreements for antitrust litigation, and that SCOTUS never intended Actavis to be applied so broadly. Edlin et al. argue that their approach follows directly from Actavis, and that large reverse payments are generally not economically rational. In the unlikely case where competitors have legitimate pro-competitive reasons for large reverse payments, they would still be able to offer these reasons in defense.

The May 2014 update is now available.

More BCLBE in the news>>