Search for: "MACANDREWS & FORBES"
Results 1 - 20
of 91
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jul 2012, 12:44 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), the Delaware Supreme Court explained that when a target board of directors enters Revlon-land, the board’s role changes from that of “defenders of the corporate bastion to auctioneers charged with getting the best price for the stockholders at a sale of the company. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 10:04 am
Ronald Perelman's MacAndrews & Forbes is offering to pay $24 a share in cash for the shares it does not already own. [read post]
19 Apr 2010, 10:19 am
In a 46-page opinion, Vice Chancellor Laster substituted new lead counsel in a representative action against Revlon related to the merger process that made MacAndrews & Forbes Revlon's controlling stockholder. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 2:34 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), the Delaware Supreme Court explained that when a... [read post]
4 Aug 2012, 6:38 pm
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.,[1] the Delaware Supreme Court explained that when a target board of directors enters... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 6:48 pm
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), the Delaware Supreme Court... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 12:56 pm
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del.... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 8:01 am
The DOJ recently announced a $720,000 civil penalty against Macandrews & Forbes Holdings for violating premerger notice and waiting requirements under the Hart-Scott Rodino Act related to its acquisition of Scientific Games in June 2012. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 7:48 am
Investment Firm Pays $720k Penalty for Purchasing Additional Shares without Filing HSR Recently, the DOJ, at the request of the FTC, filed a complaint against MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings charging it with violating the HSR Act when it acquired voting shares of Scientific Games - and the company settled to pay civil penalties of $720,000. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 3:00 am
MacAndrews & Forbes (Del. [read post]
31 Oct 2017, 12:00 pm
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, 506 A. 2d 173, 180 (Del. 1985), Google Scholar. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 6:00 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Hldgs., Co., 506 A.2d 173, 179 (Del. 1986). [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 2:03 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, 506 A.2d 173 (Del.1985), and its progeny. [read post]
16 Jul 2011, 11:01 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), and its progeny. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 1:08 pm
MacAndrews and Forbes has required the boards of target companies in change-of-control transactions to maximize immediate shareholder value – that is, to expose the firm to a market canvass before closing any transaction and refrain from favoring one bidder over another for reasons unrelated to short-term value. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 6:30 am
MacAndrews and Forbes, 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), the Delaware Supreme Court required the directors of the target company in change-of-control mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to maximize short-term value – that is, to expose the company to a market canvass and refrain from favoring one bidder over another for reasons unrelated to immediate value maximization. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 6:30 am
MacAndrews and Forbes, 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986), the Delaware Supreme Court required the directors of the target company in change-of-control mergers and acquisitions (M&A) to maximize short-term value – that is, to expose the company to a market canvass and refrain from favoring one bidder over another for reasons unrelated to immediate value maximization. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 6:16 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings has on the takeover process. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 4:47 am
Ron Perelman, cigar-chomping CEO of Pantry Pride, wanted to acquire Revlon. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 6:00 am
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, that when a “sale” or “break-up” of a company becomes “inevitable,” the duty of the board of directors is not to maintain the independence of the company or otherwise give priority to long-term considerations, but rather to obtain the highest price possible for the shareholders in the transaction (that is, to maximize short-term value). [read post]
