Search for: "State v. Stoa."
Results 21 - 35
of 35
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2013, 6:45 am
Lynch because both procedural protections were not used in that controller take-private transaction), stated that this enabled him to fill the void and answer the question definitively. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 7:01 am
Booth v. [read post]
19 Sep 2011, 6:41 am
" The Supreme Court also clarified the standard for use by the Court of Chancery in deciding a motion to dismiss, saying that the traditional Delaware "conceivability" standard had not (at least yet) been modified to be consistent with the "plausibility" standard articulated by the US Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 8:39 am
"[O]nce a siege has begun," the court stated," the board is not constrained to repel the threat to just beyond the castle walls. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 7:37 am
Delaware Chancery Refuses to Apply Choice of Law Provision in Investment Bank's Engagement Letter From Kevin Miller of Alston & Bird: In Shandler v. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 7:29 am
In making a determination not to aggregate the multiple transactions, the Court of Chancery largely relied on precedent from the Second Circuit case, Sharon Steel Corp. v. [read post]
Delaware: Enjoining Advance Notice Bylaws Requires Radical Shift in Director-Initiated Circumstances
13 Jan 2015, 2:54 am
In AB Value Partners, L.P. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 7:22 am
Ch. 2005) - Genesco, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 7:35 am
If your thought is to take refuge in Vantagepoint Venture Partners 1996 v. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 6:40 am
Delaware Court Delays Contested Annual Meeting Here's news from Steven Haas of Hunton & Williams: On December 20th, the Court of Chancery issued a temporary restraining order in Sherwood v. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 7:10 am
Taylor v. [read post]
22 May 2014, 4:41 am
Justice Carolyn Berger’s 14-page opinion in ATP Tour Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 7:39 am
See Arnold v. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 7:38 am
Alliance Fund II, L.P. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 7:29 am
The stockholder in VeriFone had brought derivative litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
