<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
	<title>Business Law Journal</title>
	<link>http://blj.ucdavis.edu</link>
	<description>Point and click business law analysis.</description>
	<language>en-us</language>
	<copyright>Copyright 2000-2008 University of California, Davis, School of Law. All rights reserved.</copyright>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:03:41 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<item><title>Preparing Proxy Statements Under the SEC&#39;s New Rules Regarding Executive and Director Compensation Disclosures</title>
<link>http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/661/</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:00:0 -0800</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/661/</guid>
<description>This article is meant to serve as a resource for companies attempting to comply with the new Rules, by (i) briefly describing the historical development of executive compensation and related disclosures and the impetus for the recent Rules, (ii) (x) outlining various aspects of the Rules which specifically relate to tabular and narrative disclosure of executive and director compensation and security ownership and (y) providing suggestions for compliance and examples from companies that have incorporated various aspects of the Rules into their proxy statements, and (iii) identifying potential consequences of future non–compliance.</description>
</item>
<item><title>Interpretation of Bankruptcy Code &#167; 1322(C)(1): Arguing for a Bright–Line Approach to the Debtor&#39;s Statutory Right to Cure a Residential Mortgage Default</title>
<link>http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/660/</link>
<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:00:0 -0800</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/660/</guid>
<description>This article questions at what point does the statutory right to cure a prior default on the mortgage of a home terminate.  It argues for a bright–line approach that the relevant bankruptcy statute terminates the right of the debtor at the time of the foreclosure sale.</description>
</item>
<item><title>Internationalizing Copyright: How Claims of International, Extraterritorial Copyright Infringement May Be Brought in U.S. Courts</title>
<link>http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/655/</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:00:0 -0800</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/655/</guid>
<description>This Comment argues that the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”)  may serve as a jurisdictional basis for claims of international copyright infringement occurring outside of the United States.   While the Supreme Court&#39;s recent decision in Sosa v. Alvarez–Machain  restricts the class of claims that may invoke ATS jurisdiction, Sosa does not foreclose such jurisdiction for new claims based upon customary international law.</description>
</item>
<item><title>Demystifying Hedge Funds: a Design Primer</title>
<link>http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/654/</link>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:00:0 -0800</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/654/</guid>
<description>This article seeks to explain the structures that hedge fund promoters utilize and why promoters use those structures by describing some basic, popular hedge fund structures and explaining the regulatory planning that accounts for them.   The simplest answer to why promoters design hedge fund structures to avoid registration under the Investment Company Act is that hedge funds permit managers to share directly in the fund&#39;s investment gain, while mutual funds do not.</description>
</item>
<item><title>Preemption of the California Ethical Standards in Securities Arbitration: Jevne v. Superior Court</title>
<link>http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/653/</link>
<pubDate>Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:00:0 -0800</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://blj.ucdavis.edu/article/653/</guid>
<description>An examination of the conflict that arises in securities arbitration between the NASD rules governing neutral arbitrators and the newly enacted California Ethical Standards.   The Note argues that the California Supreme Court erred in holding that NASD regulations preempt the California Ethical Standards.</description>
</item>
</channel></rss>