Adherence to the first-AUG rule when a second AUG codon follows closely upon the first.

The rule that eukaryotic ribosomes initiate translation exclusively at the 5' proximal AUG codon is abrogated under rare conditions. One circumstance that has been suggested to allow dual initiation is close apposition of a second AUG codon. A possible mechanism might be that the scanning 40S ribosomal subunit flutters back and forth instead of stopping cleanly at the first AUG. This hypothesis seems to be ruled out by evidence presented herein that in certain mRNAs, the first of two close AUG codons is recognized uniquely. To achieve this, the 5' proximal AUG has to be provided with the full consensus sequence; even small departures allow a second nearby AUG codon to be reached by leaky scanning. This context-dependent leaky scanning unexpectedly fails when the second AUG codon is moved some distance from the first. A likely explanation, based on analyzing the accessibility of a far-downstream AUG codon under conditions of initiation versus elongation, is that 80S elongating ribosomes advancing from the 5' proximal start site can mask potential downstream start sites.

A responsabilidade civil dos administradores de companhias abertas: artigo 159, § 6°, LSA e a Business Judgment Rule

O estudo da responsabilidade civil dos administradores de companhias abertas na doutrina nacional trata usualmente dos deveres fiduciários, do ato regular de gestão e da teoria ultra vires, da culpa ou dolo do administrador, das ações ut universi e ut singuli e da solidariedade entre a responsabilidade do administrador e a da companhia. Poucos abordam as causas extintivas dessa responsabilidade, e raro são os que tratam da hipótese de exclusão de responsabilidade do artigo 159, § 6º, da Lei nº 6.404/76. Como a disciplina dos deveres fiduciários prevista na lei societária brasileira tem forte influência do Direito norte-americano, buscou-se na legislação, doutrina e jurisprudência daquele país os fundamentos necessários à melhor interpretação e aplicação da regra de exclusão e, em especial, na business judgment rule, doutrina que protege os administradores contra responsabilização por prejuízos à companhia decorrentes de decisões por eles adotadas, proteção esta também conferida pela hipótese do artigo 159, § 6º, da Lei nº 6.404/76, ao administrador leal e de boa-fé.

Comment Letter on Rule 14a-8(I)(10), Securities & Exchange Commission, June 18, 2015

This letter focuses on SEC interpretations of Rule 14a-8(i)(10). The provision allows issuers to exclude shareholder proposals that have been “substantially implemented.” This has traditionally been used to allow for the exclusion of proposals rendered “moot” by the company’s actions. Companies, however, need not implement the shareholder proposal “exactly.” As a result, the staff is often asked to determine whether changes made by the company are substantial. The comment letter discusses positions taken by the staff where the company adopts a proposal asking that shareholders with a specified percentage of shares have the right to call a special meeting but limits eligible shares to those held for a specified period of time.

Comment on Rule 14a-8(i)(9), Securities and Exchange Commission, June 30, 2015

The Securities and Exchange Commission has been analyzing its interpretation under Subsection (i)(9) of Rule 14a-8. This provision allows for the exclusion of shareholder proposals that conflict with those submitted by management. The staff has been examining its interpretation since instructed to do so by the chair of the SEC following a no action appeal in a case involving Whole Foods. A number of letters and memos submitted in connection with the review have analyzed the issue. At least one asserted that any change in interpretation required the Commission to go through the process of notice and comment. This letter asserts that notice and comment is not required, relying extensively on Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.

The minimal overlap rule: restrictions on mergers for creditors’ consensus

As it is known, there is no rule satisfying additivity in the complete domain of bankruptcy problems. This paper proposes a notion of partial additivity in this context, to be called μ-additivity. We find out that this property, together with two quite compelling axioms, equal treatment of equals and continuity, identify the minimal overlap rule, introduced by O’Neill (Math. Soc. Sci. 2:345–371, 1982).

Rule, 1830 March 31

One-leaf containing handwritten instructions about drafting a paper.

Tooth histology and ultrastructure of a Paleozoic shark, Edestus heinrichii / Katherine Taylor -- and Thomas Adamec --.

v.33:no.24(1977)

Rule of selection of delinquents, 1801 April 8

Four-page handwritten draft of a public statement to the students from the Harvard Faculty related to the amendment of College Law XVIII, Chapter IV concerning the suppression of concealed disorders. The document appears to be in the hand of President Joseph Willard.

Warrant to attach goods of Abel Taylor, 1783

A warrant to seize nine pounds, the equal in property, or the body of Abel Taylor of Stow, to answer charges of debt brought by Nathan Smith of Weston.

Letters from John Taylor,

Two letters regarding placement of a Chinese cook with Tudor, and a future visit.

Rule of three : manuscript, 1774

An arithmetic copybook, with accounting problems concerning commercial transactions. There is a reference to the Boston Tea Party in problem no. 68.