Search for: "Nature' s Enterprises, Inc." Results 681 - 700 of 1,252
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2015, 12:47 pm by Jeremy
The judge found in the claimant's favour and found the directors to be personally liable with the judge citing MCA Records Inc v Charly Records [2002].I had thought much of the veil-piercing would rest on the fact that the defendants had abused the corporate veil by dissolving the company in the middle of proceedings (the form to dissolve the company was by amazing coincidence signed the day before the defendants received the claim form!). [read post]
5 Apr 2015, 6:46 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
The 2008 decision in BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders clarified that the duty of the directors is to the corporation. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 3:11 am
" See In re Cox Enterprises, Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1040 (TTAB 2007) (THEATL merely descriptive of magazines about Atlanta). [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 5:01 am by Terry Hart
Borland Intern., Inc., 49 F. 3d 807, 818 (1st Circuit 1995). [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 5:54 am by Barry Sookman
According to the court: In Disney Enterprises Inc. v Click Enterprises Inc. (2006), 2006 CanLII 10213 (ON SC), 267 DLR (4th) 291, 49 CPR (4th) 87 (ONSC) the court summarized Binnie J’s decision in SOCAN: In Socan, the court had to decide where copyright infringement occurs and applied the “real and substantial connection” test as developed in Morguard and Beals. [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 6:23 am by Doorey
The Supreme Court of Canada has never decided a workplace race discrimination case in the Charter era (although that will end soon, as it heard arguments in Bombardier Inc. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 3:07 am by Peter Mahler
Accordingly, while there is no dispute that petitioner/plaintiff’s hard work over the years contributed to the success of the enterprise, the [respondents] should not be restrained from confronting the business challenges faced by the [corporations] going forward. [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 9:57 am by Christopher Simon
In particular, the court noted that even if the evidence suggested, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff’s primary duty was administrative in nature, this was insufficient evidence to hold that he exercised discretion and independent judgment. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 10:05 am
  These questions, among others, find a response in yesterday's judgment of High Court for England and Wales, Chancery Division, ruling of Mr Justice Arnold in Enterprise Holdings Inc v Europcar Group UK and Another[2015] EWHC 17 (Ch).BackgroundEnterprise and Europcar are two heavyweights of the car rental market. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 1:00 pm by Greene LLP
Similarly, in 2012, Sonoco Inc. paid the state of Massachusetts $2.2 million for allegedly defrauding the same clean up fund. [read post]