<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Aggressive Corporate Lawyer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com</link>
	<description>Corporate Law Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 09:58:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>IRS Issues New Guidance to Private Foundations on Program Related Investments</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/irs-issues-new-guidance-to-private-foundations-on-program-related-investments.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/irs-issues-new-guidance-to-private-foundations-on-program-related-investments.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 09:58:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foundations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guidance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIVATE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Related]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/irs-issues-new-guidance-to-private-foundations-on-program-related-investments.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The IRS recently issued proposed regulations that provide new examples that illustrate what types of investments qualify as &#34;program-related investments&#34; (PRIs). These new examples are based on published guidance and on financial structures that had previously been approved in private letter rulings.
Program Related Investments&#8212;In General
Excise taxes are imposed on private foundations, as well as their [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/irs-issues-new-guidance-to-private-foundations-on-program-related-investments.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tampering with documents in connection with a merger investigation can land you in jail!</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/tampering-with-documents-in-connection-with-a-merger-investigation-can-land-you-in-jail.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/tampering-with-documents-in-connection-with-a-merger-investigation-can-land-you-in-jail.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 22:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[land]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tampering]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/tampering-with-documents-in-connection-with-a-merger-investigation-can-land-you-in-jail.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By Robert Magielnicki and Malika Levarlet
One does not usually associate the possibility of criminal penalties with the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act premerger review process. However, on May 3, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice (&#34;DOJ&#34;) announced that an executive of a South Korean company agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges and to serve five [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/tampering-with-documents-in-connection-with-a-merger-investigation-can-land-you-in-jail.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SEC Staff Issues Report on the Cross-Border Scope of Private Rights of Action for Securities Fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-staff-issues-report-on-the-cross-border-scope-of-private-rights-of-action-for-securities-fraud.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-staff-issues-report-on-the-cross-border-scope-of-private-rights-of-action-for-securities-fraud.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 21:59:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CrossBorder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRIVATE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Staff]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-staff-issues-report-on-the-cross-border-scope-of-private-rights-of-action-for-securities-fraud.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (&#8220;SEC&#8221;) recently released a study on the cross-border scope of the private right of action under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the &#8220;Exchange Act&#8221;), 15 U.S.C. &#167; 78j(b), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. &#167; 240.10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The study, mandated by Congress [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-staff-issues-report-on-the-cross-border-scope-of-private-rights-of-action-for-securities-fraud.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President Obama Signs JOBS Act: Landmark Reform for Small and Emerging Growth Companies Now Law</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/president-obama-signs-jobs-act-landmark-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-now-law.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/president-obama-signs-jobs-act-landmark-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-now-law.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:03:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emerging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Landmark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Signs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Small]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/president-obama-signs-jobs-act-landmark-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-now-law.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 5, 2012, President Obama signed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act, enacting it into law. The JOBS Act is intended to make it easier for smaller and earlier stage companies to raise capital and also to revitalize the U.S. market for initial public offerings, which has been in decline since the beginning [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/president-obama-signs-jobs-act-landmark-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-now-law.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fifth Circuit Requires More than &#8220;Tangential Relationship&#8221; Between Alleged Fraud and Transactions in &#8220;Covered Securities&#8221; to Support Dismissal Under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/fifth-circuit-requires-more-than-tangential-relationship-between-alleged-fraud-and-transactions-in-covered-securities-to-support-dismissal-under-the-securities-litigation-uniform-standards-act.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/fifth-circuit-requires-more-than-tangential-relationship-between-alleged-fraud-and-transactions-in-covered-securities-to-support-dismissal-under-the-securities-litigation-uniform-standards-act.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1998]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alleged]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Between]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Covered]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fifth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[More]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Relationship]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Requires]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tangential]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[than]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transactions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uniform]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/fifth-circuit-requires-more-than-tangential-relationship-between-alleged-fraud-and-transactions-in-covered-securities-to-support-dismissal-under-the-securities-litigation-uniform-standards-act.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Roland v. Green, 2012 WL 898557 (5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that in order for a plaintiff&#8217;s state law class action lawsuit alleging fraud to be properly removable to federal court and precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (&#8220;SLUSA&#8221;), [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/fifth-circuit-requires-more-than-tangential-relationship-between-alleged-fraud-and-transactions-in-covered-securities-to-support-dismissal-under-the-securities-litigation-uniform-standards-act.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Effectively Reverses Rejection of SEC&#8217;s Settlement with Citigroup</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-effectively-reverses-rejection-of-secs-settlement-with-citigroup.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-effectively-reverses-rejection-of-secs-settlement-with-citigroup.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Citigroup]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effectively]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rejection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reverses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-effectively-reverses-rejection-of-secs-settlement-with-citigroup.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Securities &#38; Exchange Commission v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 2012 WL 851807 (2d Cir. Mar. 15, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit essentially approved the terms of a settlement between the Securities and Exchange Commission (the &#8220;SEC&#8221;) and Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (&#8220;Citigroup&#8221;) that had been notoriously rejected by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-effectively-reverses-rejection-of-secs-settlement-with-citigroup.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>House Passes Modified JOBS Act and sends to President Obama &#8211; Expected to Become Law this Week</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/house-passes-modified-jobs-act-and-sends-to-president-obama-expected-to-become-law-this-week.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/house-passes-modified-jobs-act-and-sends-to-president-obama-expected-to-become-law-this-week.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 21:59:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Become]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Expected]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modified]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Passes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[this]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Week]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/house-passes-modified-jobs-act-and-sends-to-president-obama-expected-to-become-law-this-week.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed the version of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act that was approved by the Senate on March 22, 2012. The House vote was 380-41. President Obama is expected to sign the bill this week. We discussed the JOBS Act and the Senate&#8217;s modifications to the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/house-passes-modified-jobs-act-and-sends-to-president-obama-expected-to-become-law-this-week.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Passes Modified JOBS Act &#8211; Regulatory Reform for Small and Emerging Growth Companies Speeds Closer to Fruition</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/senate-passes-modified-jobs-act-regulatory-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-speeds-closer-to-fruition.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/senate-passes-modified-jobs-act-regulatory-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-speeds-closer-to-fruition.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Closer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emerging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fruition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jobs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Modified]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Passes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Small]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Speeds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/senate-passes-modified-jobs-act-regulatory-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-speeds-closer-to-fruition.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 22, 2012, the Senate passed the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act by a vote of 73-26. The House of Representatives passed the JOBS Act on March 8, 2012 by a vote of 390-23. The Senate bypassed its typical committee process to rush the bill to a floor vote. Legislators in both parties [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/senate-passes-modified-jobs-act-regulatory-reform-for-small-and-emerging-growth-companies-speeds-closer-to-fruition.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Delaware Chancery Court Clarifies When Corporate Officers and Directors are Entitled to Mandatory Indemnification Under DGCL § 145</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-chancery-court-clarifies-when-corporate-officers-and-directors-are-entitled-to-mandatory-indemnification-under-dgcl-%c2%a7-145.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-chancery-court-clarifies-when-corporate-officers-and-directors-are-entitled-to-mandatory-indemnification-under-dgcl-%c2%a7-145.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chancery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clarifies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DGCL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entitled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indemnification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mandatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Under]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-chancery-court-clarifies-when-corporate-officers-and-directors-are-entitled-to-mandatory-indemnification-under-dgcl-%c2%a7-145.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Hermelin v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., C.A. No. 6936-VCG, 2012 WL 395826 (Del. Ch. Feb. 7, 2012), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered whether the former chief executive officer (&#8220;CEO&#8221;) of a pharmaceutical company, against whom several regulatory and criminal actions had been brought, had been successful &#8220;on the merits or otherwise&#8221; such that he [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-chancery-court-clarifies-when-corporate-officers-and-directors-are-entitled-to-mandatory-indemnification-under-dgcl-%c2%a7-145.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Clarifies Meaning of &#8220;Domestic Transactions&#8221; As Used In Morrison v. National Australia Bank</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-clarifies-meaning-of-domestic-transactions-as-used-in-morrison-v-national-australia-bank.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-clarifies-meaning-of-domestic-transactions-as-used-in-morrison-v-national-australia-bank.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:07:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clarifies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Domestic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morrison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transactions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Used]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-clarifies-meaning-of-domestic-transactions-as-used-in-morrison-v-national-australia-bank.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Ltd. v. Ficeto, 2012 WL 661771 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that, for purposes of applying the federal securities laws to transactions involving securities not traded on a U.S.-based stock exchange, a transaction is &#8220;domestic,&#8221; and thus within [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/second-circuit-clarifies-meaning-of-domestic-transactions-as-used-in-morrison-v-national-australia-bank.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

