Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 6461 - 6480
of 8,176
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Apr 2024, 2:05 pm
Acceptance of Plan (Section 1126) Section 1126 of Subchapter II begins by stating that, “[t]he holder of a claim or interest allowed under section 502 of this title may accept or reject a plan. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 9:28 am
In FAA v. [read post]
30 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
In United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 11:59 am
” At the Huffington Post, Lisa Schirch highlights what she describes as four “false assumptions” undergirding the Court’s decision in Holder v. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 1:58 pm
Co. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 2:00 am
This question should at least serve as a place-holder pending outcome of Oil States. [read post]
15 Feb 2023, 7:38 am
Musto v. [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 6:32 am
Holder and Lusardi v. [read post]
21 Jan 2018, 11:15 am
Here are some helpful cases from other states which I believe a Tennessee court would find persuasive and might follow: Wardley Development, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 7:42 am
Holder, a 2009 immigration case. [read post]
1 Nov 2010, 7:56 am
Ct. at 3225 (citing Funk v. [read post]
22 Nov 2021, 3:00 am
The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. [read post]
17 May 2020, 8:14 am
The connection with accounting remained, but reduced to a dimension increasingly rejected by Western society as abhorrent to its ideals emerging from the Enlightenment (famously in Dostoevsky, Brothers Karamazov (Constance Garnett, trans.: NY Lowell Press) Bk V, Chp V, The Grand Inquisitor)). [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 3:32 am
Dilution and Mergers/Recapitalizations The second setting in which dilution claims often are litigated is in connection with a corporate merger or recapitalization that has the effect of diluting the pre-recapitalization interests of certain equity holders. [read post]
26 Oct 2020, 7:39 pm
Vance and Trump v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 10:02 am
In the case of State of Bihar v. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
Justice Emerson also pointed to the statement in the defendants’ responsive letter that “[y]ou are a 20% equity holder of this company. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
Justice Emerson also pointed to the statement in the defendants’ responsive letter that “[y]ou are a 20% equity holder of this company. [read post]
21 Mar 2016, 3:28 am
Justice Emerson also pointed to the statement in the defendants’ responsive letter that “[y]ou are a 20% equity holder of this company. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 9:11 am
In Unum Group v. [read post]
