Matt Levine writes on a recent court case involving a vice president who ‘stole’ or ‘took’ Goldman’s ‘proprietary’ or ‘generic’ code from the office.  The banker says he thought the code was generic.  Goldman says that a Vice President’s legal problems are not their concern.  The title is just “too be police.”

From the opinion:  ”

Over a six year period, fifty-three people associated with GSCo were considered for advancement and/or indemnification. Of these fifty-three, Goldman paid the attorney’s fees for fifty-one. Aside from Aleynikov, Goldman refused to pay indemnification and/or advancement for one other person who sought it, also a GSCo vice president. However, of the fifty-one whose fees Goldman paid, fifteen were GSCo vice presidents.

Now the case will go before a jury of twelve people who are to determine:

A jury must determine the interpretive value of Goldman’s extrinsic evidence in resolving the ambiguity in the By-Laws.

Because that is what 12 randomly selected laypeople are particularly good at: determining the interpretive value of extrinsic evidence in resolving ambiguity in corporate documents.