Search for: "P V Holding Corporation" Results 301 - 320 of 1,759
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2020, 9:39 am by John Jascob
A search of the Wolters Kluwer Cheetah platform’s SEC Staff Comment Letters database and of the SEC EDGAR database revealed SEC staff comment letter dialogs with five companies: Masco Corporation; Boeing Company; Coca Cola Company; Graphic Packaging Holding Company; and Procter & Gamble Co. [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 1:21 pm
Indeed, the Commentary to Article 5 notes the need for lawyer regulatory organs to regulate in this area in a comprehensive manner, acknowledging that the work of a lawyer may well extend well beyond technical legal advice(see my discussion Lawyers Are Not Algorithms: Sustainability, Corruption, and the Role of the Lawyer in Institutional Frameworks and Corporate Transactions).Bar associations may also wish to consider, in examining their codes of professional conduct, the differing roles… [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 2:24 am by Schachtman
Starting in 1964, Johns-Manville Corporation, the major manufacturer of asbestos-containing insulation, started warning. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 5:52 pm by Francis Pileggi
” Abry is controlling He says the extra-contractual claims are governed by Delaware law as established by then-Vice Chancellor Leo Strine’s seminal 2006 opinion in Abry P’rs V, L.P. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2020, 6:43 am by John Jascob
(p. 41)This decision does not hold that a controller loses MFW protection when it improves its offer after reaching agreement with the special committee. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 9:21 am by Florence Campbell Jones
Gray and others v G-T-P Group Ltd: Re F2G Realisations Ltd (in liquidation) [2010] EWHC 1772 (Ch) held that a charge characterised as a floating charge over financial collateral will only qualify as a floating charge under the Regulations if “legal control” as opposed to “administrative control” of the underlying financial collateral is transferred to the collateral-taker. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 10:08 am by Krzysztof Pacula
In the present case, the substantive right in question is a credit arising from a contractual obligation that Supreme holds against SHAPE. 3. [read post]