<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Apple and Dante&#8217;s Inferno&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.footnoted.org/buried-treasure/on-apple-and-dantes-inferno/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.footnoted.org/buried-treasure/on-apple-and-dantes-inferno/</link>
	<description>Michelle Leder's guide to what's hiding in SEC filings</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Broc Romanek</title>
		<link>http://www.footnoted.org/buried-treasure/on-apple-and-dantes-inferno/comment-page-1/#comment-6161</link>
		<dc:creator>Broc Romanek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 21:15:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footnoted.org/?p=2405#comment-6161</guid>
		<description>I blogged on the topic - that answers "why" today: http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/001894.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I blogged on the topic - that answers &#8220;why&#8221; today: <a href="http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/001894.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thecorporatecounsel.net/blog/archive/001894.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.footnoted.org/buried-treasure/on-apple-and-dantes-inferno/comment-page-1/#comment-6118</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:56:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footnoted.org/?p=2405#comment-6118</guid>
		<description>One important change seems to be that the notice requirement for shareholder nominees has been moved from not later to 60 days, to not later than 90 days but not earlier than 120.  This now only gives a hostile party a 30 day window.  Given all the recent beneficial ownership discussion regarding stealth ownership from swaps (i.e., the CSX case and 13D beneficial ownership), I am a bit surprised that the changes don't require more beneficial ownership information from the nominating stockholder.  (My two cents from a quick pass)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One important change seems to be that the notice requirement for shareholder nominees has been moved from not later to 60 days, to not later than 90 days but not earlier than 120.  This now only gives a hostile party a 30 day window.  Given all the recent beneficial ownership discussion regarding stealth ownership from swaps (i.e., the CSX case and 13D beneficial ownership), I am a bit surprised that the changes don&#8217;t require more beneficial ownership information from the nominating stockholder.  (My two cents from a quick pass)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://www.footnoted.org/buried-treasure/on-apple-and-dantes-inferno/comment-page-1/#comment-6116</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:09:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.footnoted.org/?p=2405#comment-6116</guid>
		<description>This is in response to OfficeDepot and other recent cases in Delaware.  You are going to see most companies incorporated in Delaware make similar changes before the end of the year.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is in response to OfficeDepot and other recent cases in Delaware.  You are going to see most companies incorporated in Delaware make similar changes before the end of the year.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
