Marvin Chirelstein. Their casebook was pathbreaking for it introduced a new methodolo modern finance into the business law curriculum Chirelstein had been dragooned by Dean Eugene Rostow into teaching what was then called Business Units II when he arrived at Yale Law School in 1965 from Rutgers, where he and brudney had been colleagues. What was there to do with a course that consisted"entirely of case-annotations for commonly used bond indentures and other boiler-plate documents, " and was"the most boring and insignificant course ever offered anywhere at any time in any language(as Chirelstein put it)? Well, the 1960,s were a fervent period in the theoretical development of finance, which had previously been an unexciting, descriptive field involving financial ratio analysis and rules of thumb. Finance had been as dead a field as Manning 's depiction of corporate law, but no longer. Reading the Journal of Finance in those days was certainly more intellectually stimulating than reading the dreary provisions in bond indentures, and Chirelstein thought that was just the thing to spice up Business Unit IT's stolid cases that were the source of those indenture provisions That is, there was a veritable intellectual revolution bubbling up in finance in the 1960s and that left an impression on Brudney and Chirelstein. They were intrigued by the notions of random walk, and efficient markets, buzzing around in the air at the time, and what impact these concepts would have on the liability and property rules relating to corporate law. They put these ideas together into a casebook that was published in 1972. The casebook could not, however, have appeared much earlier because of the relative infancy of the tools of modern finance. A brief chronology of the theoretical breakthroughs in finance conveys the point 6 Victor Brudney Marvin A. Chirelstein, Cases and Materials on Corporate Finance (Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1972)Victor Brudney & Marvin A. Chirelstein, Cases and Materials on Corporate Finance 6 (Mineola, NY: Foundation Press, 1972). 6 Marvin Chirelstein. Their casebook was pathbreaking for it introduced a new methodology, 6 modern finance, into the business law curriculum. Chirelstein had been dragooned by Dean Eugene Rostow into teaching what was then called Business Units II when he arrived at Yale Law School in 1965 from Rutgers, where he and Brudney had been colleagues. What was there to do with a course that consisted “entirely of case-annotations for commonly used bond indentures and other boiler-plate documents,” and was “the most boring and insignificant course ever offered anywhere at any time in any language”(as Chirelstein put it)? Well, the 1960's were a fervent period in the theoretical development of finance, which had previously been an unexciting, descriptive field involving financial ratio analysis and rules of thumb. Finance had been as dead a field as Manning’s depiction of corporate law, but no longer. Reading the Journal of Finance in those days was certainly more intellectually stimulating than reading the dreary provisions in bond indentures, and Chirelstein thought that was just the thing to spice up Business Unit II’s stolid cases that were the source of those indenture provisions. That is, there was a veritable intellectual revolution bubbling up in finance in the 1960s and that left an impression on Brudney and Chirelstein. They were intrigued by the notions of random walk, and efficient markets, buzzing around in the air at the time, and what impact these concepts would have on the liability and property rules relating to corporate law. They put these ideas together into a casebook that was published in 1972. The casebook could not, however, have appeared much earlier because of the relative infancy of the tools of modern finance. A brief chronology of the theoretical breakthroughs in finance conveys the point: