Current Issues in Tender Offer Regulation: Lessons From the British

The recent submission to Congress of several proposed amendments to the Williams Act has again made tender offer regulation a controversial subject. Professor DeMott believes that the debate about regulatory reform can benefit from a comparative study of Britih and American tender offer rcgulation. She finds the British system instructive in three important respects. First, the British system specifically indentifies different kinds of transactions that resemble tender offers and regulates those transactions according to the hazards they create for investors. Unlike the American system, which imposes a single set of highly complex regulations only if a transaction qualifies as a tender offer under nebulous judicial definitions, the British system recognizes that certain acquisitions of a small percentage of a corporation\u27s shares, while appropriately subject to some regulation, need not trigger application of the full panoply of rules. The author also notes that the bright line rules uscd by the British to define regulated transactions facilitate financial and legal planning and promote an orderly market for corporate control. Second, by enforcing a more rigorous view of fair and equal treatment of target shareholders than does the American system, the British system may discourage takeover attempts and bidding contests that benefit shareholders. For instance, the British require that a purchaser of thirty percent of target stock offer to buy out remaining shareholders at tihe highest price it paid for the stock. In the author\u27s view, such a protective rule may be too costly: it may also be unnecessary in the United States, where minority shareholders may enjoy appraisal rights and may bring deritative suits against management more easily than their British counterparts. Third, by requiring that target management provide shareholders with an independent appraisal of each tender offer and obtain the sharcholders\u27 approval before engaging in defensive maneuvers that might defeat the offer, the British system provides a moderate solution to the problem of managerial conflicts of interest caused by hostile takeover efforts. Recognizing that some defensive role for target management may be appropriate. Professor Delfott argues that the British approach may be preferable to current proposals that defensive tactics be prohibited

Intensive forestry in Sweden : stakeholders' evaluation of benefits and risk

There is growing consensus about the need to develop sustainable use of forest resources, but no consensus about how to interpret and implement this goal. Political institutions, governmental agencies, forest companies, and environmental organizations have partly different views on what sustainable forestry means and what strategies to use to achieve it. Not least, the climate change issue has put higher and partly new demands on forests, both as providers of biomass and as carbon sinks, which may be in conflict with other services of the forest’s ecosystem. This paper analyses how different Swedish stakeholders evaluate the possibilities for intensive forestry, that is, to increase the production of woody biomass through increased use of fertilizers, improved genetic material, the introduction of exotic tree species, and the use of fastgrowing deciduous tree species. The analysis shows that the pros and cons are evaluated differently, with some stakeholders assessing intensive forestry as a radical break from the current goal of sustainable forestry and others viewing it as according with it. It is concluded that this conflict should be understood as concerning not competing knowledge claims, but competing frames – schemes of interpretation through which the complexity of reality is reduced. This means that the solution is not to be found in improved knowledge but in increased awareness that the involved frames are the source of the conflict.Funding agency:Forestry Research Institute of Sweden (Skogforsk) Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) Umea University Future Forest

A randomised trial comparing two protocols for transrectal prostate repeat biopsy : six lateral posterior plus six anterior cores versus a standard posterior 12-core biopsy

Objective: To test the hypothesis that a combination of 6 posterior and 6 anterior cores detects more cancer than 12 posterior cores at a repeat transrectal prostate biopsy in men who have had one previous benign systematic biopsy. Patients and methods: Three hundred and forty men with persistently raised serum PSA were randomly allocated 1:1 to either a standard 12-core biopsy (12 cores from the lateral peripheral zone through a side-fire biopsy canal) or an experimental 12-core biopsy protocol with 6 anterior cores through an end-fire biopsy canal and 6 cores from the lateral peripheral zone through a side-fire biopsy canal. All biopsies were obtained transrectally with ultrasound guidance. The primary endpoint was cancer detection. Secondary endpoints were detection of ISUP Grade Groups/Gleason Grade Group ≥2 cancer, total biopsy cancer length and complications leading to medical intervention. Results: Prostate cancer was detected in 42/168 men (25%) in the experimental biopsy group and in 36/172 (21%) in the standard biopsy group (p = 0.44). The corresponding proportions for Gleason score ≥7 were 12% and 7% (p = 0.14). Median total cancer length was 4 (inter quartile range [IQR] = 1.5 − 6) mm in the end-fire group and 3 (IQR = 1.3 − 7) mm in the side-fire group. Ten men in the end-fire group and three in the side-fire group had a medical intervention for biopsy-related complications (p = 0.05). Conclusion: The biopsy protocol that included six end-fire anterior cores did not detect more cancer and was associated with more complications

TLR4-dependent activation of dendritic cells by an HMGB1-derived peptide adjuvant

High mobility group box protein 1 (HMGB1) acts as an endogenous danger molecule that is released from necrotic cells and activated macrophages. We have previously shown that peptide Hp91, whose sequence corresponds to an area within the B-Box domain of HMGB1, activates dendritic cells (DCs) and acts as an adjuvant in vivo. Here we investigated the underlying mechanisms of Hp91-mediated DC activation. Hp91-induced secretion of IL-6 was dependent on clathrin-and dynamin-driven endocytosis of Hp91 and mediated through a MyD88- and TLR4-dependent pathway involving p38 MAPK and NF kappa B. Endosomal TLR4 has been shown to activate the MyD88-independent interferon pathway. Hp91-induced activation of pIRF3 and IL-6 secretion was reduced in IFN alpha beta R knockout DCs, suggesting an amplification loop via the IFN alpha beta R. These findings elucidate the mechanisms by which Hp91 acts as immunostimulatory peptide and may serve as a guide for the future development of synthetic Th1-type peptide adjuvants for vaccines.Funding Agencies|National Institutes of Health/NCI [5U54 CA119335]; U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [W81XWH-07-1-0412]; Swedish Research Council [AI52731]; Swedish Physicians against AIDS Research Foundation; Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency; SIDA SARC; VINNMER for Vinnova; Linkoping University Hospital Research Fund; CALF; Swedish Society of Medicine</p

37 forskare och debattörer: AP-fonderna måste divestera

Half of all our pension money are invested in stocks. These funds support fossil fuel companies, which is totally inacceptable. 37 researcerhs and debaters demand divestification of these stocks