<?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/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/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, 15 Sep 2021 13:16:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Special Purpose Acquisition Companies and the Investment Company Act of 1940</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2021 12:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Company Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPOs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers & acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SEC enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SPACs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Special purpose vehicles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=140146?d=20210903084732EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, a stockholder in three special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”—Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, Ltd. (“PSTH”), GO Acquisition Corp. and E.Merge Technology Acquisition Corp) brought novel claims against each SPAC, its sponsor and directors. The suits claim that each SPAC is an unregistered investment company and that the compensation paid by the SPAC to its [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by E. Ramey Layne, Michael C. Holmes, and Robert Ritchie, Vinson & Elkins LLP, on Friday, September 3, 2021 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> <a href="https://www.velaw.com/people/e-ramey-layne/">E. Ramey Layne</a> and <a href="https://www.velaw.com/people/michael-c-holmes/">Michael C. Holmes</a> are partners and <a href="https://www.velaw.com/people/robert-ritchie/">Robert Ritchie</a> is counsel at Vinson &amp; Elkins LLP. This post is based on a Vinson &amp; Elkins memorandum by Mr. Layne, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Ritchie, and <a href="https://www.velaw.com/people/zach-swartz/">Zach Swartz</a>.
</div></hgroup><p>Last week, a stockholder in three special purpose acquisition companies (“SPACs”—Pershing Square Tontine Holdings, Ltd. (“PSTH”), GO Acquisition Corp. and E.Merge Technology Acquisition Corp) brought novel claims against each SPAC, its sponsor and directors. <a class="footnote" id="1b" href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/#1">[1]</a> The suits claim that each SPAC is an unregistered investment company and that the compensation paid by the SPAC to its sponsor and its directors (notably the founder shares and warrants, or comparable interests in the case of PSTH) was illegal and void under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”). <a class="footnote" id="2b" href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/#2">[2]</a> The suits have received a fair amount of press, in part because PSTH and its attempted investment in Universal Media Group (“UMG”) are high profile, and in part because two of the lawyers representing the plaintiff in the suit are Robert J. Jackson, Jr., an NYU law professor and former Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) commissioner (who served in that role roughly two years from January 2018 to February 2020), and John Morley, a Yale Law professor.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/#more-140146" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Special Purpose Acquisition Companies and the Investment Company Act of 1940">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2021/09/03/special-purpose-acquisition-companies-and-the-investment-company-act-of-1940/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
