Spiking Chemical Sensor (SCS): A new platform for neuro-chemical sensing

Published versio

Towards a Reconfigurable Sense-and-Stimulate Neural Interface Generating Biphasic Interleaved Stimulus

Published versio

A Programmable Neural Interface for Investigating Arbitrary Stimulation Strategies

Accepted versio

Conversion Rights and the Design of Financial Contracts

Part II of this Article discusses the gains yielded by convertible debt financing. Convertible debt can act as a signal of favorable private information and can mitigate the incentives of shareholders to promote excessive risk taking by the firm. Part III describes puttable stock and the legal regulation that bears on it. The regulation of puttable stock ranges from prohibition to the requirement that the firm be solvent after the exercise of the put. Part IV compares convertible debt and puttable stock. Part V discusses the effect of the mildest form of legal restrictions on puttable stock, the solvency requirement, on these potential gains

A Theory of the Regulation of Debtor-in-Possession Financing

The profile of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in public consciousness has surged recently. Other than the automatic stay on the enforcement of claims, the most publicized feature of bankruptcy reorganizations is debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing. Indeed, along with the bankruptcy stay, DIP financing is the motivation for many Chapter 11 filings. Under Section 364 of the Code, a firm in bankruptcy (the debtor in possession) can finance its ongoing operations and investments by issuing new debt that enjoys any one of various levels of priority, all of which rank higher than the firm\u27s prepetition unsecured debt.\u27 The debtor\u27s financing arrangements under this section are subject to the oversight of the bankruptcy court; in fact, most arrangements require prior judicial authorization. Despite the frequency and significance of DIP financing, no coherent theory informs judicial determinations under Section 364. The conventional explanation for the provision is that it enables the debtor to offer inducements to lenders in the form of elevated priority without which the lenders would not be willing to invest. Yet, proponents of this rationale fail to explain the cause of this reticence, other than to imply that lenders associate a stigma with bankruptcy that causes them to shy away irrationally from financing profitable projects of firms in bankruptcy. However, DIP lending has expanded rapidly and a growing number of banks have departments that specialize in financing firms in bankruptcy, whether or not the bank has existing exposure to the debtor.\u27 The stigma of bankruptcy was probably an early casualty in the emergence of a competitive debt market in this area. The more serious problem with the conventional explanation is that it is incomplete. Even if priority debt is necessary to induce lending to firms in bankruptcy, this rationale for Section 364 provides no theoretical framework for the judicial oversight of financing arrangements that the section requires. It is not clear what factors the courts should refer to in determining whether a financing induced in this manner is desirable or not. To a large degree, the courts currently defer to the decisions of the debtor in possession and seek only to ensure that the parties negotiate DIP financing arrangements in competitive environments. History somewhat justifies their concern. In the past, DIP enders have reportedly enjoyed extraordinary rates of return as a result of the reduction in risk caused by the elevated priority and their ability to charge substantial up-front fees. More recently, however, the market has become much more competitive due to low barriers to entry into this sector and the growth in DIP lending opportunities

Debt Financing and Motivation

An individual\u27s performance in a given activity is a function of her effort and her competence, as well as her surrounding conditions. Effort, in turn, can be divided into three characteristics: direction, intensity and duration. Intensity and duration of effort reflect the individual\u27s motivation with respect to the given activity. Motivation is the product of a cognitive process that anticipates the outcomes of effort and, particularly, the degree to which the individual will be satisfied or dissatisfied with her performance. While individuals might define satisfaction in terms of input (i.e., the amount of effort applied to the task), they more typically set standards for output (i.e., performance) that are derived from internal and external sources. Performance is commonly judged by a dichotomous success-failure standard as opposed to a graduated metric standard. This standard has both a prospective and retrospective impact on motivation. For example, an individual is motivated to raise her effort to avoid failure, and, if failure occurs, she may be motivated to redirect, intensify or prolong future effort to avoid the recurrence of failure

Test of CPT Symmetry and Quantum Mechanics with Experimental data from CPLEAR

We use fits to recent published CPLEAR data on neutral kaon decays to $\pi^+\pi^-$ and $\pi e\nu$ to constrain the CPT--violation parameters appearing in a formulation of the neutral kaon system as an open quantum-mechanical system. The obtained upper limits of the CPT--violation parameters are approaching the range suggested by certain ideas concerning quantum gravity.Comment: 9 pages of uuencoded postscript (includes 3 figures