Search for: "Board of Directors v. Superior Court"
Results 501 - 520
of 542
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2008, 6:03 am
Because the business judgment rule applies to decisions made by the board of directors, as opposed to corporate officers or other representatives, all significant decisions – to the extent possible – should be made, or ratified, by the board. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 12:57 pm
See Welch v. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 5:49 pm
Today’s post analyzes this decision as well as the similar decision by the North Carolina Superior Court arising from the Wachovia/ Wells Fargo merger.) [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 2:00 pm
APPELLATE / IP In Coffee Battle (Folgers v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 7:58 pm
Ehrenhaus v. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 9:17 am
Similarly, the District Court also ruled over a year ago that, if Arnao failed to disclose to the board of directors of Citizens Alliance that she had authorized over $1 million of Citizens Alliance’s funds to be used for Fumo’s personal benefit, then she would have been guilty of fraudulently violating the public and charitable purposes for which the Citizens Alliance was created. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 7:15 pm
Superior Court, 17 Cal.2d 13, 21, 108 P.2d 906(1941). [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 11:43 am
Sys. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 3:51 am
I was intrigued by the recent SC decision in Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya and Ors. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 10:32 am
Condo managers and directors can find good news in the April 2008 Ontario Superior Court decision in MTCC 932 v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 11:02 am
Biomet, Inc., et al - On September 21, 2006, the plaintiff shareholders brought a derivative action against the former directors and board members of Biomet, Inc., alleging their improper backdating of stock options from 1996 - 2000. [read post]
13 Oct 2008, 8:08 pm
On September 12, 2008, Integrity shareholders filed a purported class action in Georgia (Fulton County) Superior Court against the holding company and four Integrity officers. [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 7:43 pm
Strine notes that Unocal’s board met for eight or nine hours to consider Pickens’ offer — a response to Smith v. [read post]
10 Sep 2008, 1:25 pm
Chief Justice Steele: DirectWomen is an initiative of the Business Law Section of the ABA to train female lawyers and prepare them to serve on Boards of Directors, as well as help them get placed on Boards. [read post]
6 Sep 2008, 3:03 am
Chief Justice Steele: DirectWomen is an initiative of the Business Law Section of the ABA to train female lawyers and prepare them to serve on Boards of Directors, as well as help them get placed on Boards. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 8:18 pm
In Ryan v. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 5:43 pm
Superior Court Criminal Law & Procedure Institute, Calif. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 6:07 pm
In Ryan v. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 9:20 pm
Court: Triennial Review Must Analyze Reasonableness of Water Quality Standards The Arcadia II case, City of Arcadia v. [read post]
