<?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>The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance</title>
	<atom:link href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/12/how-the-sec-should-consider-possible-changes-in-section-13d-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu</link>
	<description>The leading online blog in the fields of corporate governance and financial regulation.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2026 11:30:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.8</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>How the SEC Should Consider Possible Changes in Section 13(d) Rules</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/12/how-the-sec-should-consider-possible-changes-in-section-13d-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-the-sec-should-consider-possible-changes-in-section-13d-rules</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/12/how-the-sec-should-consider-possible-changes-in-section-13d-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:21:04 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Academic Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Accounting & Disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HLS Research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blockholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Schedule 13D]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Williams Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=19403?d=20150106095311EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a letter submitted yesterday to the Securities and Exchange Commission, we provide a detailed analysis of the policy issues relevant for the Commission’s ongoing examination of changes to its rules under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These rules, which govern share accumulation and disclosure by blockholders, are the subject of [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Lucian Bebchuk, Harvard Law School, and Robert J. Jackson, Jr., Columbia Law School, on Tuesday, July 12, 2011 </em><div class='e_n' style='background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px;text-indent:2.5em;'><strong style='margin-left:-2.5em;'>Editor's Note: </strong> <p style="margin:0; display:inline;"><a href="http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bebchuk/" target="_blank">Lucian A. Bebchuk</a> is Professor of Law, Economics, and Finance at Harvard Law School, and <a href="http://www.law.columbia.edu/fac/Robert_Jackson" target="_blank">Robert J. Jackson, Jr.</a> is Associate Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. This post is based on the authors’ submission to the SEC available <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1884226" target="_blank">here</a>. An earlier post describing the Wachtell, Lipton rulemaking petition to which this post refers is available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2011/03/22/the-case-for-modernizing-section-13-beneficial-ownership-reporting-rules/">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>In a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1884226" target="_blank">letter </a>submitted yesterday to the Securities and Exchange Commission, we provide a detailed analysis of the policy issues relevant for the Commission’s ongoing examination of changes to its rules under Section 13(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These rules, which govern share accumulation and disclosure by blockholders, are the subject of a recent rulemaking petition submitted by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz, which proposes that the rules be tightened.</p>
<p>We argue that the Commission should not view the proposed tightening as merely “technical” changes needed to modernize its Section 13(d) rules. In our view, the proposed changes should be examined in the larger context of the beneficial role that outside blockholders play in American corporate governance and the broad set of rules that apply to such blockholders.</p>
<p>Our analysis proceeds in five steps. First, we describe the significant empirical evidence indicating that the accumulation and holding of outside blocks in public companies benefits shareholders by making incumbent directors and managers more accountable and thereby reducing agency costs and managerial slack.</p>
<p>Second, we explain that tightening the rules applicable to outside blockholders can be expected to reduce the returns to blockholders and thereby reduce the incidence and size of outside blocks—and, thus, blockholders’ investments in monitoring and engagement, which in turn may result in increased agency costs and managerial slack.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/12/how-the-sec-should-consider-possible-changes-in-section-13d-rules/#more-19403" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading How the SEC Should Consider Possible Changes in Section 13(d) Rules">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2011/07/12/how-the-sec-should-consider-possible-changes-in-section-13d-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
