Ann Lipton

annmlipton@esq.social

Law prof at Colorado Law, business and securities. Profile pic for the job you want, ... etc @annmlipton.bsky.socialYou can find my papers here: <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2365170" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=2365170</a>I also blog regularly at <a href="https://www.businesslawprofessors.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no">https://www.businesslawprofessors.com/</a>

Posts

Post #4078924
Oh. https://www.wsj.com/health/taylor-farms-cyclospora-recall-delay-call-41fef0bc
Post #4076269
A thread about my favorite experiment ever. Follow along and play.
Post #4073984
"David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance agreed to freeze its $110bn merger with Warner Bros Discovery until as late as next June...The new timeline 'materially reduces the near-term concern that a politicised Paramount would control CNN during the 2026 midterms'" https://www.ft.com/content/95cad892-7933-441a-bc82-c39b1a225835
Post #4048256
No, the Truth Social thing is not legal even if the data feed access is simultaneous with public posting, as the company now seems to be arguing https://www.businesslawprofessors.com/2026/07/quick-followup-on-the-truth-social-thing/
Post #3867670
Not that anyone cares but yes this is illegal https://www.wsj.com/tech/trump-media-to-sell-faster-access-to-presidents-social-posts-7a7054e8?mod=hp_lead_pos2
Post #3837972
The IPO website literally had links to brokerage firms and invited potential investors to click to open an account. https://www.ft.com/content/94959f40-1874-4ece-b629-b18f43aa3ede?shareType=nongift
Post #3654978
"a little-noticed rule proposed ....could change how guns are purchased... It would allow customers to be vetted for firearms and buy them online, and have the weapons delivered directly to their homes — instead of picking them up in store after an in-person check." https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/07/business/dealbook/spacex-index-funds.html
Post #3364257
"Polymarket built near-perfect copies of its website, then instructed creators to make simulated trades...and hide that they were being paid by Polymarket." US market is targeted, even though Polymarket's platform is banned here; the company knows you can access via VPN https://www.wsj.com/business/media/polymarket-social-media-bets-prediction-market-441cdeb5?mod=hp_lead_pos7
Post #3115318
&quot;Facebook’s 2012 IPO offers a useful illustration. After its debut, the stock fell nearly 50 per cent in the first few months. Now called Meta, the firm has a market capitalisation of more than $1.5tn&quot; *goose meme* &quot;how soon was it added to the index? HOW SOON?&quot; https://www.ft.com/content/ca3a0302-da58-42cd-b070-c00629ed33e1
Post #3115317
sent an email to vanguard as a fund investor asking them not to add spacex to their indexes until it has had time to season not really expecting anything, but maybe there are others, who knows
Post #3115316
there is actual legal precedent that markets are not efficient in the first 25 days following an IPO. we can argue about its legal basis but at minimum passive investors should question whether it&#39;s appropriate to start buying in that period In re SCOR Holding 537 F.Supp.2d 556 (SDNY 2008)
Post #3115315
They heard me again! SpaceX filed yet another amended S-1, and this time they explain that they think the Texas Business Court will have jurisdiction over Exchange Act claims because the exclusivity provisions of the federal securities laws are waivable. -
Post #3115314
not sure if everyone can access this, but I just learned about some dramatic changes to SSRN from Steve Bainbridge&#39;s Substack. This is really bad; SSRN has been how I keep up with scholarship in my field from a variety of researchers https://www.stephenbainbridge.com/p/the-social-science-research-network
Post #3115313
&quot;SpaceX chose to set a specific price, rather than a range, to eliminate drama in the process, according to people close to the deal.&quot; Yes, that&#39;s definitely how SpaceX has approached this offering. Lack of drama. https://www.wsj.com/business/spacex-ipo-would-raise-75-billion-281b0886?mod=hp_lead_pos4
Post #3115312
AAAHHHHAHHHHH AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH https://www.law360.com/corporate/articles/2485527/campbell-soup-sued-over-worm-like-critters-in-spaghettios
Post #3115311
heh Wordle 1,811 2/6* 🟩⬜🟨⬜🟩 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Post #3115310
Apparently SpaceX is going to launch an IPO related website, but I don&#39;t think it&#39;s up yet: (yes, this is legal, though it seems like it&#39;ll be expecting a retail audience more than these things usually are) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026040610/spacexfwp.htm
Post #3115309
RE: https://esq.social/@annmlipton/116692046276262325 oh it&#39;s up, here: https://spacexipo.com/ Musk is going to tweet out a video, doesn&#39;t look like he&#39;s done that yet
Post #3115308
usually you see this only in your finer boiler rooms spacexipo.com
Post #3115307
Snarkiness aside, I&#39;ve been using the same video from Facebook&#39;s electronic roadshow to demonstrate the concept to Sec Reg students for 10 years, so it&#39;s nice I&#39;ll get to use the SpaceX one next year: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2062548455570985377?s=20
Post #3066162
okay this is hilarious https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/nyregion/tom-kean-jr-new-jersey-absence.html
Post #3066161
Wordle 1,809 4/6* ⬜🟨⬜⬜⬜ 🟨⬜🟨⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Post #3066160
Hey, various SH rights/responsible investing groups launched a website to defend the shareholder proposal mechanism: https://www.protectshareholdervoice.com/
Post #3066159
Well, they heard me. I previously blogged about SpaceX&#39;s litigation limits for shareholders, including the remarkable claim in their S-1 that it is &quot;unsettled&quot; whether shareholders can bring claims in state court over Exchange Act violations. https://www.businesslawprofessors.com/2026/05/unsettled/
Post #3066155
Amended S-1 here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1181412/000162828026039276/spaceexplorationtechnologi.htm
Post #3066153
This is another violation of the securities laws, not that anyone cares anymore. (Now that the S-1 is public, SpaceX is allowed to release this kind of information, but technically - https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/spacex-plans-raise-75-billion-ipo-135-per-share-source-says-2026-06-03/
Post #2350862
oh hey another cautionary tale the next time i teach business associations. i literally tell my students, this is the &quot;stay out of prison&quot; unit of the course https://www.law360.com/corporate/articles/2474508
Post #2323067
&quot;large language models such as ChatGPT were consistently advising women to ask for lower salaries than men in recruitment processes,... AI tools already in use by more than half of England’s councils were downplaying women’s medical conditions, potentially resulting in unequal care&quot; https://www.ft.com/content/60e2a900-8999-46cc-8107-4f468f442aae
Post #2308825
speaking as a law professor, that&#39;s the good stuff &quot;Clients are sending their lawyers swaths of letters, emails, questions and patents generated by AI chatbots, raising the prospect of higher legal bills to reflect the time spent responding to them.&quot; https://www.ft.com/content/744d2c77-a34e-4ca0-9f0e-ce8cdcdee483
Post #2014787
I realize normal people won&#39;t get this but the signal being sent here is, corporate boards - especially tech boards - no longer feel the need to even make a public relations gesture toward procedural regularity when making decisions My concern - https://www.fox7austin.com/news/dell-technologies-board-redomestication-texas-delaware