<?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/john-donovan/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>Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:01:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Federal Court&#8217;s Denial of Excessive Fee Claims on Mutual Fund “Manager of Managers” Theory</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/09/20/federal-courts-denial-of-excessive-fee-claims-on-mutual-fund-manager-of-managers-theory/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/09/20/federal-courts-denial-of-excessive-fee-claims-on-mutual-fund-manager-of-managers-theory/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2016 13:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fund managers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment advisers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liability standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mutual funds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 36(b)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. federal courts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=73709?d=20160920093124EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On August 25, a federal court in the District of New Jersey issued a much-anticipated decision, finding after a lengthy trial that shareholder plaintiffs failed to prove claims that AXA entities had charged excessive mutual fund management fees in violation of Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act. In the first case to proceed to trial [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by John Donovan, Ropes & Gray LLP, on Tuesday, September 20, 2016 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> <a href="https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/d/john-d-donovan.aspx" target="_blank">John Donovan</a> is partner in the litigation department at Ropes &amp; Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes &amp; Gray publication by Mr. Donovan, <a href="https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/s/robert-a-skinner.aspx" target="_blank">Robert Skinner</a>, and <a href="https://www.ropesgray.com/amyroy" target="_blank">Amy Roy</a>.
</div></hgroup><p>On August 25, a federal court in the District of New Jersey issued a much-anticipated decision, finding after a lengthy trial that shareholder plaintiffs failed to prove claims that AXA entities had charged excessive mutual fund management fees in violation of Section 36(b) of the 1940 Act. In the first case to proceed to trial since the U.S. Supreme Court established the legal standard for these claims in its landmark 2010 decision in <em>Jones v. Harris Associates L.P.</em>, the New Jersey trial court held in the defendants’ favor on all claims relating to twelve mutual funds operating in a “manager of managers” structure. The plaintiffs’ central theory of liability—mirrored in several other pending cases across the industry—is that AXA improperly retained a significant portion of the management fees despite delegating virtually all of the management responsibilities to external sub-advisers. Based on review of extensive documents and testimony, Judge Peter G. Sheridan rejected the premise of this theory, finding that there was ample evidence that AXA retained responsibility for a range of management services and bore significant risks in its role as fund sponsor and adviser.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/09/20/federal-courts-denial-of-excessive-fee-claims-on-mutual-fund-manager-of-managers-theory/#more-73709" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Federal Court&#8217;s Denial of Excessive Fee Claims on Mutual Fund “Manager of Managers” Theory">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/09/20/federal-courts-denial-of-excessive-fee-claims-on-mutual-fund-manager-of-managers-theory/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec: Business Registration and Personal Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/05/14/genuine-parts-co-v-cepec-business-registration-and-personal-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/05/14/genuine-parts-co-v-cepec-business-registration-and-personal-jurisdiction/#respond</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 May 2016 13:05:10 +0000</pubDate>
<!-- 		<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator> -->
				<category><![CDATA[Court Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Practitioner Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation & Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Forum selection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Incorporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Written consent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/?p=72874?d=20160514090510EDT</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On April 18, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court held that corporations not incorporated in Delaware that register to do business in that state are not subject to the “general” jurisdiction of the Delaware courts. In Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec, the Court held that under the U.S. Constitution, Delaware’s business registration statute cannot be read [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<hgroup><em>Posted by John D. Donovan, Jr. and Gregg L. Weiner, Ropes & Gray LLP, on Saturday, May 14, 2016 </em><div style="background:#F8F8F8;padding:10px;margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:10px"><strong>Editor's Note: </strong> <a href="https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/d/john-d-donovan.aspx" target="_blank">John D. Donovan, Jr.</a> is partner in the litigation department, and <a href="https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/w/gregg-weiner.aspx" target="_blank">Gregg L. Weiner</a> is co-head of the business &amp; commercial litigation practice, at Ropes &amp; Gray LLP. This post is based on a Ropes &amp; Gray memorandum by Mr. Donovan and Mr. Weiner. This post is part of the <a href="http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/the-delaware-law-series/">Delaware law series</a>; links to other posts in the series are available <a href="http://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/the-delaware-law-series/">here</a>.
</div></hgroup><p>On April 18, 2016, the Delaware Supreme Court held that corporations not incorporated in Delaware that register to do business in that state are not subject to the “general” jurisdiction of the Delaware courts. In <em>Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec</em>, the Court held that under the U.S. Constitution, Delaware’s business registration statute cannot be read to constitute a “consent” to general jurisdiction by out-of-state corporations. Business conduct in Delaware leading to a claim—and not just registration to do business—is now the key to the Delaware courthouse door for plaintiffs seeking to sue in that forum. As one of the most important jurisdictions addressing claims against business entities, Delaware now joins the growing list of states that will refuse to adjudicate cases arising out of business activity conducted elsewhere, and that has nothing to do with the forum state.</p>
<p> <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/05/14/genuine-parts-co-v-cepec-business-registration-and-personal-jurisdiction/#more-72874" class="more-link"><span aria-label="Continue reading Genuine Parts Co. v. Cepec: Business Registration and Personal Jurisdiction">(more&hellip;)</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/05/14/genuine-parts-co-v-cepec-business-registration-and-personal-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
