Search for: "MAY'S INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION"
Results 401 - 420
of 20,469
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Mar 2024, 12:46 pm
Wells ¶ 4, Van Steenburgh Affidavit, Exhibit B, Docket No. 1677). [3] Id. at *8 (internal quotation marks omitted). [4] Id. at *2. [5] See Beck, “Experts Offering Evidence of Corporate Intent, Ethics, And The Like,” Drug & Device Law (May 19, 2011) (collecting cases). [read post]
12 Mar 2024, 9:32 am
[and also because private clubs generally have broad discretion in interpreting their internal rules.] [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm
The greater internal resources of top-tier firms may give a litigation advantage for top-tier firms in deciles 8 and 9. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
Under SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(12), a company may ex [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 8:37 am
It will be important therefore to consult promptly with experienced whistleblower counsel if you have information that may be of interest to the Department. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 5:56 am
” Even in cases that may not fall under an obvious “national security” rubric, the Department’s heightened enforcement approach and emphasis on individual accountability may nevertheless serve important national security purposes. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 3:58 am
India continues to make reforms to ease cumbersome business processes, including reducing its corporate tax rates. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 6:02 pm
The text follows below and may be accessed fro the White House website HERE. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 1:18 pm
Any Alaska Native Corporation. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 6:35 am
The early signs of how climate change is driving widespread shifts in the international system are clearly visible. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 6:31 am
The Commission’s 2010 climate guidance explains how climate-related issues, particularly pertaining to a company’s financial condition, could be required in disclosures under the Commission’s existing regime.[3] Under current rules, companies may have to disclose, among other things, information relating to the “[i]mpact of legislation and regulation,” “international accords,” “[i]ndirect consequences of regulation and business… [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 6:31 am
The Commission’s 2010 climate guidance explains how climate-related issues, particularly pertaining to a company’s financial condition, could be required in disclosures under the Commission’s existing regime.[3] Under current rules, companies may have to disclose, among other things, information relating to the “[i]mpact of legislation and regulation,” “international accords,” “[i]ndirect consequences of regulation and business… [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 12:08 am
Compensation may be available. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 9:03 pm
As the release notes, many U.S. issuers that have overseas operations may have to comply with other jurisdictions’ climate disclosure rules. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
To avoid potential liability, companies may voluntarily disclose climate-related information despite concluding that the information is immaterial. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 3:46 pm
The consortium is a complex international web of decentralized companies controlled either fully or partially by Dilian, including through Sara Aleksandra Fayssal Hamou. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 3:00 am
In January, Liz shared this Locke Lord blog explaining why the “public company” exemption for the Corporate Transparency Act isn’t enough to insulate public companies from having to conduct a compliance review for all subsidiaries or investment entities and install new internal controls. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
In certain cases, boards and management may consider proactively seeking input on key AI-related concerns and priorities during regular investor engagement. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 6:46 pm
Colette (2019) – An appellate court in California held that a director of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation who had standing to sue the corporation and sue another director for self-dealing did not lose standing after she was removed Turner v. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 8:13 am
To be sure, as the per curiam opinion notes (p.7), the private respondents “maintain that States may enforce Section 3 against candidates for federal office. [read post]
