<?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 &#187; Articles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/inc/articles/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com</link>
	<description>Corporate Law Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:59:46 +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>Higher Filing Thresholds for HSR Act Premerger Notifications and Interlocking Directorates Announced</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/higher-filing-thresholds-for-hsr-act-premerger-notifications-and-interlocking-directorates-announced.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/higher-filing-thresholds-for-hsr-act-premerger-notifications-and-interlocking-directorates-announced.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Announced]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Directorates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Filing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Higher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interlocking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Notifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premerger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thresholds]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/higher-filing-thresholds-for-hsr-act-premerger-notifications-and-interlocking-directorates-announced.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1. Higher Thresholds For HSR Filings
On January 24, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission announced revised, higher thresholds for premerger filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. The filing thresholds are revised annually, based on the change in gross national product and will be effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register. Publication [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/higher-filing-thresholds-for-hsr-act-premerger-notifications-and-interlocking-directorates-announced.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Public Company Control Alert: NYSE Acts to Further Limit Broker Votes on Specified Corporate Governance Proposals</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/public-company-control-alert-nyse-acts-to-further-limit-broker-votes-on-specified-corporate-governance-proposals.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/public-company-control-alert-nyse-acts-to-further-limit-broker-votes-on-specified-corporate-governance-proposals.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 10:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ALERT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Further]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Limit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NYSE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Specified]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Votes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/public-company-control-alert-nyse-acts-to-further-limit-broker-votes-on-specified-corporate-governance-proposals.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 25, 2012, the New York Stock Exchange issued an Information Memo to its member organizations stating that effective immediately, brokers may not vote on corporate governance proposals supported by company management without instructions from their clients. NYSE&#8217;s rules affect the voting of all shares held in &#8220;street name&#8221; by NYSE member organizations, regardless [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/public-company-control-alert-nyse-acts-to-further-limit-broker-votes-on-specified-corporate-governance-proposals.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Further Relief on Section 6045B Reporting</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/further-relief-on-section-6045b-reporting.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/further-relief-on-section-6045b-reporting.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[6045B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Further]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reporting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/further-relief-on-section-6045b-reporting.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As previously reported in the January 9th blog article, today is the last day to file Form 8937 to report 2011 corporate actions that affect stock basis, as required under Internal Revenue Code section 6045B. Because the actual IRS Form 8937 was only very recently released, and because a number of questions about the form [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/further-relief-on-section-6045b-reporting.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foreign Corporation&#8217;s Mere Awareness That Its Products May Ultimately End Up In a Forum State Is Not Sufficient Contact to Support Personal Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/foreign-corporations-mere-awareness-that-its-products-may-ultimately-end-up-in-a-forum-state-is-not-sufficient-contact-to-support-personal-jurisdiction.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/foreign-corporations-mere-awareness-that-its-products-may-ultimately-end-up-in-a-forum-state-is-not-sufficient-contact-to-support-personal-jurisdiction.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Awareness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FOREIGN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sufficient]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ultimately]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/foreign-corporations-mere-awareness-that-its-products-may-ultimately-end-up-in-a-forum-state-is-not-sufficient-contact-to-support-personal-jurisdiction.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Dow Chemical Canada ULC v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 6382110 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Dec. 21, 2011), the California Court of Appeal, Second District, held that &#8220;plac[ing] products into the stream of commerce in a foreign country (or another state), aware that some may or will be swept into the forum state[,]&#8221; is not, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/foreign-corporations-mere-awareness-that-its-products-may-ultimately-end-up-in-a-forum-state-is-not-sufficient-contact-to-support-personal-jurisdiction.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SEC Changes Policy on Admitting Guilt in Settlements of Enforcement Actions</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-changes-policy-on-admitting-guilt-in-settlements-of-enforcement-actions.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-changes-policy-on-admitting-guilt-in-settlements-of-enforcement-actions.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:59:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Admitting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guilt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-changes-policy-on-admitting-guilt-in-settlements-of-enforcement-actions.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 6, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission (&#8220;SEC&#8221;) announced that it has modified its settlement policy for enforcement actions that also involve a criminal conviction or admissions by a defendant of criminal violations. Under its new policy, the traditional &#8220;neither admit nor deny&#8221; language will be deleted from its settlement documents. Instead, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/sec-changes-policy-on-admitting-guilt-in-settlements-of-enforcement-actions.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regulatory Update: SEC Adopts Final Rules Defining &#8220;Accredited Investor&#8221; Consistent with Dodd-Frank</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/regulatory-update-sec-adopts-final-rules-defining-accredited-investor-consistent-with-dodd-frank.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/regulatory-update-sec-adopts-final-rules-defining-accredited-investor-consistent-with-dodd-frank.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 09:58:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accredited]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Adopts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Consistent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defining]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DODDFRANK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Final]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Update]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/regulatory-update-sec-adopts-final-rules-defining-accredited-investor-consistent-with-dodd-frank.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just before 2011 year-end, the SEC adopted final rules first proposed in January 2011 to exclude the value of an investor&#8217;s home when determining if an investor meets the net worth test for an accredited investor. A person&#8217;s status as an accredited investor affects eligibility, sophistication and information requirements for certain unregistered securities offerings. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/regulatory-update-sec-adopts-final-rules-defining-accredited-investor-consistent-with-dodd-frank.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Update on New Reporting Rules for Stock Splits, Recapitalizations, Mergers and Acquisitions</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/update-on-new-reporting-rules-for-stock-splits-recapitalizations-mergers-and-acquisitions.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/update-on-new-reporting-rules-for-stock-splits-recapitalizations-mergers-and-acquisitions.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Recapitalizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reporting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Splits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stock]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Update]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/update-on-new-reporting-rules-for-stock-splits-recapitalizations-mergers-and-acquisitions.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As previously reported, Section 6045B of the Internal Revenue Code imposes new reporting requirements on issuers of &#34;specified securities&#34; engaging in organizational actions after December 31, 2010 that affect the tax basis of their specified securities. Generally, a &#34;specified security&#34; includes shares of stock and interests treated as stock (such as an American Depository Receipt).
Under [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/update-on-new-reporting-rules-for-stock-splits-recapitalizations-mergers-and-acquisitions.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York High Court Holds That State Blue Sky Law Does Not Preempt Common Law Claims Involving Securities</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/new-york-high-court-holds-that-state-blue-sky-law-does-not-preempt-common-law-claims-involving-securities.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/new-york-high-court-holds-that-state-blue-sky-law-does-not-preempt-common-law-claims-involving-securities.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Involving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Preempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[York]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/new-york-high-court-holds-that-state-blue-sky-law-does-not-preempt-common-law-claims-involving-securities.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Assured Guaranty (UK) Ltd. v. J. P. Morgan Investment Management Inc., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 09162, 2011 WL 6338898 (N.Y. Dec. 20, 2011), the New York Court of Appeals held that the Martin Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law art. 23-A &#8212; New York&#8217;s &#8220;blue sky&#8221; law designed to address fraudulent practices in the marketing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/new-york-high-court-holds-that-state-blue-sky-law-does-not-preempt-common-law-claims-involving-securities.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Relief A Shareholder Is Entitled For Inspection Of Corporate Books And Records Pursuant To A Section 220 Demand</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-relief-a-shareholder-is-entitled-for-inspection-of-corporate-books-and-records-pursuant-to-a-section-220-demand.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-relief-a-shareholder-is-entitled-for-inspection-of-corporate-books-and-records-pursuant-to-a-section-220-demand.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clarifies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Demand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entitled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inspection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pursuant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scope]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-relief-a-shareholder-is-entitled-for-inspection-of-corporate-books-and-records-pursuant-to-a-section-220-demand.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Espinoza v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 208, 2011 WL 5838882 (Del. Nov. 21, 2011), the Delaware Supreme Court held that shareholders seeking inspection of corporate books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, 8 Del. C. &#167;&#160;220 (&#8220;Section 220&#8221;), must demonstrate that the records sought are &#8220;essential&#8221; to the &#8220;articulated purpose [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/delaware-supreme-court-clarifies-scope-of-relief-a-shareholder-is-entitled-for-inspection-of-corporate-books-and-records-pursuant-to-a-section-220-demand.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ninth Circuit Latest to Permit Corporate Liability Under Alien Tort Statute; Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split in 2012</title>
		<link>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/ninth-circuit-latest-to-permit-corporate-liability-under-alien-tort-statute-supreme-court-to-resolve-circuit-split-in-2012.htm</link>
		<comments>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/ninth-circuit-latest-to-permit-corporate-liability-under-alien-tort-statute-supreme-court-to-resolve-circuit-split-in-2012.htm#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alien]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ninth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Permit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Resolve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Split]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Under]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/ninth-circuit-latest-to-permit-corporate-liability-under-alien-tort-statute-supreme-court-to-resolve-circuit-split-in-2012.htm</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC, Nos. 02-56256, 02-56390, 09-56381, 2011 WL 5041927 (9th Cir. Oct. 25, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit became the latest Circuit to hold that corporations may be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (&#8220;ATS&#8221;), 28 U.S.C. &#167;&#160;1350.&#160;As previously reported here and here, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.aggressivecorporatelawyer.com/ninth-circuit-latest-to-permit-corporate-liability-under-alien-tort-statute-supreme-court-to-resolve-circuit-split-in-2012.htm/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

