Search for: "People v. Forbes (1986)" Results 1 - 20 of 21
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
Normative foundations of business may include the moral and not only economic value of promises, morally articulated fiduciary duties of agency (including duties of care, candor, and loyalty), and the obligation to show respect to all business participants, including a moral imperative to treat employees and customers as people who deserve dignity and due recognition – and not merely as means to the ends of making profits for others.[20] Adam Smith and his followers in contemporary… [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 9:00 pm by Kyle Hulehan
Some people may possess a sense of fairness that opposes disproportionately high taxes on them as a matter of principle, but for most, what matters more is how it affects the broader public: what it does for the Commonwealth’s economy, understood in terms of jobs, growth, opportunity, and income-earning potential for individuals who will never join the rarified company of those actually remitting under the proposed surtax. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 12:26 pm by Francis Pileggi
MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173 (Del. 1986) “The Supreme Court said the board has to take the highest offer in a sale situation if its the end of the line for the business, but what if it will live on in some other form? [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 9:56 am by Eugene Volokh
Many religious people are understandably upset when they have to subsidize blasphemy. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 8:50 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
The perspective of shareholder maximization or through auction duty, also known as shareholder primacy, is mirrored in the American case law, based on the 1986 Delaware Supreme Court decision in Revlon Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 10:40 am by Kevin Kaufman
The state’s high and economically inefficient taxes are only one of several reasons for the outmigration of people and jobs, but taxes are an important consideration and one within policymakers’ power to address. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
 A warning about an inherent risk – a so-called “risk warning” – serves an entirely different purpose.With inherent risks, people are warned so they can decide whether that risk outweighs the benefits that might be gained from using the product. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 12:00 am by George M. Wallace
Supreme Court in the affirmative action case of United Steelworkers of America v. [read post]