Search for: "LASTER v LASTER" Results 301 - 320 of 493
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2012, 6:29 am by David E. Woollcombe
  For example, the British Columbia Supreme Court found in Icahn Partners LP v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. [read post]
13 Jun 2012, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court's decision in Morrison v. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 6:36 am by Broc Romanek
Delaware Applies Topping Bid Concept to Contested Settlement John Grossbauer of Potter Anderson notes: Recently, Delaware Vice Chancellor Laster delivered this opinion in Forsythe v. [read post]
16 May 2012, 1:05 pm by Edward M. McNally
Last week, the Court of Chancery came up with an ingenious solution to this problem in Forsythe v. [read post]
11 May 2012, 4:00 am by CorporateAcquisitions MergerLawBlogger
In the recently decided Forsythe v ESC Fund Management, Vice Chancellor Laster approved an innovative settlement. [read post]
13 Apr 2012, 8:01 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
This wasn't a close case.United Factory Furniture Corp. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 7:55 am by Michael Sirkin
Thus, according to Bainbridge, equitable division of a merger premium is a less compelling reason to apply Revlon than some Court of Chancery decisions may suggest.[11] Although Bainbridge’s criticisms are presented adroitly and are thought provoking, I believe the Court of Chancery has gotten Revlon right because of a concept that Vice Chancellor Laster has dubbed the “Last-Period Problem. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 8:47 am
Approximately 10 months ago, in his opinion in Delaware Elevator, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 9:54 pm by Gordon Smith
Delaware Vice Chancellor Laster issued a new corporate opportunity opinion yesterday, Dweck v. [read post]