<?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/2014/04/06/three-courts-dismiss-lawsuits-for-lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction/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>Wed, 19 Aug 2026 11:32:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.5.10</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>Three Courts Dismiss Lawsuits for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/06/three-courts-dismiss-lawsuits-for-lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=three-courts-dismiss-lawsuits-for-lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/06/three-courts-dismiss-lawsuits-for-lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2014 13:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Corporate Elections & Voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proxy materials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule 14a-8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder activism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder proposals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=61962?d=20141215163406EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This proxy season, rather than following the traditional route of seeking no-action relief from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (or, in one instance, after receiving a no-action denial), at least four companies have filed lawsuits against activist investor John Chevedden, in each case requesting declaratory judgment that the company may properly exclude Chevedden’s proposed [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday, April 6, 2014 </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;">The following post comes to us from <a href="http://stblaw.com/bios/YCohn.htm" target="_blank">Yafit Cohn</a>, Associate at Simpson Thacher &amp; Bartlett LLP, and is based on a Simpson Thacher memorandum; the full text, including footnotes, is available <a href="http://www.simpsonthacher.com/content/Publications/pub1726.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>.</p>
</div></hgroup><p>This proxy season, rather than following the traditional route of seeking no-action relief from the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) (or, in one instance, after receiving a no-action denial), at least four companies have filed lawsuits against activist investor John Chevedden, in each case requesting declaratory judgment that the company may properly exclude Chevedden’s proposed shareholder resolution from the proxy materials for its 2014 annual meeting. While companies have enjoyed judicial victories against Chevedden in the recent past (including during the current proxy season), this month, for the first time, three federal courts dismissed actions against Chevedden, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/06/three-courts-dismiss-lawsuits-for-lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction/#more-61962" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Three Courts Dismiss Lawsuits for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2014/04/06/three-courts-dismiss-lawsuits-for-lack-of-subject-matter-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
