Search for: "Chancellor v. Day et al" Results 1 - 20 of 54
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Feb 2024, 4:29 am by Frank Cranmer
Quick links Anna Bond, Lexology: Professor’s ‘anti-Zionist’ beliefs were protected: on Dr David Miller v University of Bristol [2024] ET 1400780/2022: we noted the case here. [read post]
1 Oct 2023, 1:32 am by Frank Cranmer
Sarah Craig et al, Equality Commission for Northern Ireland & Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission: European Union Developments in Equality and Human Rights: The Impact of Brexit on the Divergence of Rights and Best Practice on the Island of Ireland. [read post]
9 May 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
There is reason to believe the SEC’s new universal proxy Rule 14a-19 will result in more stockholder nominees being elected to the boards of public companies. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 5:59 am by Kevin LaCroix
This practice enables private equity sponsors to exercise control over portfolio companies’ strategic visions and day-to-day management. [read post]
After 19 days of public hearings producing a 10,000-page record, the Commission concluded that NEPA did not require the SEC to mandate such disclosures, and the courts later agreed.[7] While the SEC in the 1971 release had limited disclosure to “material matters,” in 1975 the Commission mandated disclosure of all environmental proceedings to which a government was a party, whether or not the amounts at issue were material. [read post]
26 Oct 2021, 4:48 pm by Arthur F. Coon
The Regents of the University of California (Collegiate Housing Foundation, American Campus Communities, et al, Real Parties in Interest) (2021) _____ Cal.App.5th _____. [read post]
20 Dec 2020, 6:53 pm by Francis Pileggi
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled that Stimwave Technologies Inc. need not advance legal costs for its suit against its ex-CEO because she apparently doctored her indemnification agreement to falsely pre-date a charter amendment requiring officers to get a major investor group’s approval of their advancement rights in Perryman et al. v. [read post]