Search for: "Board of Directors v. Banke" Results 281 - 300 of 1,156
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2019, 4:54 pm by INFORRM
Tinkler v Ferguson The case of Tinkler -v- Ferguson [2018] EWHC 3563 (QB) concerned a claim by a director of Stobart Group Limited (“Stobart”), against five other members of Stobart’s board of directors of that company. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 8:54 am by Ben
The Supreme Court, in a similar claim to unconstitutionality concerning Sovereign Immunity being abrogated in Patent and Trademark cases, has already held it to be unconstitutional (Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 2:40 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  The Telegram TRO   Dating back to as early as 2014, the SEC began bringing enforcement actions relating to cryptocurrency, and with its October 11, 2019 filing of SEC v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 11:39 am by nmlandon
Stewart (legitimacy of board member personal relationships) Donohue v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 9:05 am by Bridget Crawford
Stewart (legitimacy of board member personal relationships) Donohue v. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 5:49 am
Garrett (Duke University School of Law), on Thursday, September 12, 2019 Tags: Board oversight, Boards of Directors, Compliance & ethics, Compliance and disclosure interpretation, Compliance officer, Corporate crime, Misconduct, Oversight, Securities enforcement, Wells Fargo Stakeholder Governance and the Freedom of Directors to Embrace Long-Term Value Creation Posted by Richard S. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 7:58 am by CMS
In particular Hassett v South Eastern Health Board (Case C-372/07) [2008] ECR I-7403 and Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe v JP Morgan Bank Chase Bank NA (Case C-144/10) [2011] WLR 2087 show that art 24 is to be construed narrowly and both were considered in the present case. [read post]
3 Sep 2019, 3:39 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
In Lincoln First Bank, N.A. v Sanford, 173 AD2d 65 [4th Dept 1991], the court explained that Surrogate’s Court generally lacks jurisdiction over a shareholder derivative action because it is “the corporation, not the estate, which is entitled to the award of damages” in a derivative suit. [read post]