<?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/contributor/bradley-aronstam/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, 23 May 2021 16:17:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Recent Decisions Maintain Stability in Delaware Corporate Law</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/12/19/recent-decisions-maintain-stability-in-delaware-corporate-law/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/12/19/recent-decisions-maintain-stability-in-delaware-corporate-law/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Dec 2010 18:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Boards of Directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CBLH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware legislation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/?p=14366?d=20150120094942EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delaware’s renowned corporation law rests upon a director-centric premise, reflected in Section 141 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), that the business and affairs of corporations are to be managed by boards of directors. In carrying out this mandate, directors owe fiduciary duties requiring that they act in an informed manner (i.e., the duty [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Scott Hirst, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday, December 19, 2010 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> This post comes to us from <a href="http://www.cblh.com/attorneys/baronstam" target="_blank">Bradley R. Aronstam</a> and <a href="http://www.cblh.com/attorneys/dross" target="_blank">David E. Ross</a>, partners in the Business Law Group of Connolly Bove Lodge &amp; Hutz LLP. This post is based on an article that originally appeared in Vol. 12, No. 1 of the <em>Delaware Law Review</em>; that article can be found <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/files/2010/12/AronstamRoss2010.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. This post is part of the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.
</div></hgroup><p>Delaware’s renowned corporation law rests upon a director-centric premise, reflected in Section 141 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”), that the business and affairs of corporations are to be managed by boards of directors. In carrying out this mandate, directors owe fiduciary duties requiring that they act in an informed manner (<em>i.e</em>., the duty of care) and only in the best interests of the corporation and all of its shareholders (<em>i.e</em>., the duty of loyalty). Consistent with the legislative judgment placing directors at the helm of the corporate enterprise, and mindful of the necessary risk-taking inherent in that role, the Delaware courts afford unconflicted, informed, and properly motivated directors wide latitude in carrying out their duties. That deference is reflected in the venerable business judgment rule, under which courts will not second-guess the decisions of independent and disinterested directors acting in good faith and following an appropriate decision-making process.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/12/19/recent-decisions-maintain-stability-in-delaware-corporate-law/#more-14366" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Recent Decisions Maintain Stability in Delaware Corporate Law">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2010/12/19/recent-decisions-maintain-stability-in-delaware-corporate-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Wave of M&#038;A Litigation Attacks Private Equity Deals</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2007/07/27/new-wave-of-ma-litigation-attacks-private-equity-deals/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2007/07/27/new-wave-of-ma-litigation-attacks-private-equity-deals/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:31:43 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Mergers & Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Equity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private equity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2007/07/27/new-wave-of-ma-litigation-attacks-pri?d=20150122114911EST</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The increasing involvement of private equity firms in M&#38;A transactions has not gone unnoticed in the courts.  Our recent article in the New York Law Journal, entitled New Wave of M&#38;A Litigation Attacks Private Equity Deals, addresses several recent decisions from the Delaware Court of Chancery involving private equity firms and management buyouts.  The article [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by Robert Jackson, Managing Editor, Harvard Law School Corporate Governance Blog, on Friday, July 27, 2007 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> This post comes to us from <a href="http://www.weil.com/wgm/pages/Controller.jsp?z=l&amp;sz=p&amp;db=common/firmdir.ns5&amp;d=8D2C1BE07F2C0DAF852563EF006C35FC&amp;v=0">Joseph S. Allerhand</a> and Bradley R. Aronstam of the Securities and Corporate Governance Litigation Group at <a href="www.weil.com/">Weil, Gotshal &amp; Manges</a>.
</div></hgroup><p>The increasing involvement of private equity firms in M&amp;A transactions has not gone unnoticed in the courts.  Our recent article in the <em><a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/index.jsp">New York Law Journal</a></em>, entitled <em><a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/20070728-new-york-law-journal-article.pdf">New Wave of M&amp;A Litigation Attacks Private Equity Deals</a></em>, addresses several recent decisions from the Delaware Court of Chancery involving private equity firms and management buyouts.  The article concludes that, while the players in the M&amp;A market may have changed, the rules of the game remain the same where the board of directors decides that it&#8217;s time to sell the company.</p>
<p>The full article is available <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/20070728-new-york-law-journal-article.pdf">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2007/07/27/new-wave-of-ma-litigation-attacks-private-equity-deals/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
