Washington University Law Quarterly
In the midst of the falling sky, Professor Jay Westbrook offered a qualified defense of Levit.27 His defense was provocative, but seriously flawed. I wrote a Response to the Westbrook Article (Article) which identified deficiencies in his analysis and suggested that a much better case could be made for Levit.28 Westbrook then wrote a passionate Reply that was sharply critical of my Response. 29 This essay-rejoinder will put Levit, the Westbrook/Alces differences, and the consequences of our differences in perspective.
Peter A. Alces,
Clearer Conceptions of Insider Preferences,
71 Wash. U. L. Q. 1107
Available at: http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol71/iss4/14