Search for: "In re: TRANSACT, INC."
Results 61 - 80
of 2,699
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2008, 3:02 pm
• $67.5 million in construction financing closed October 31st for a 161-unit adaptive re-use apartment community in San Francisco. [read post]
20 May 2015, 7:35 am
[1] See In re Zhongpin, Inc. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 3:38 am
., Inc., 481 F.Supp.2d 439 (D. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 5:46 am
In the Court of Chancery’s opinion styled, In re United Capital Corp. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
Laureate Education, Inc. does not apply. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 4:10 pm
IN RE DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. [read post]
5 Jul 2017, 4:00 am
AARP, Inc., 855 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. [read post]
6 Aug 2008, 8:01 am
Registration Sys., Inc. [read post]
12 Dec 2009, 5:00 am
In Re John Q Hammons Hotels Inc. [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 12:48 pm
This sequencing is significant.Petitioner New Prime Inc. is an interstate trucking company, and respondent Dominic Oliveira is one of its drivers. [read post]
1 Feb 2011, 6:33 am
In re John Q. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 6:00 am
Recently, in In re Viacom Inc. [read post]
13 Apr 2024, 2:22 pm
It is also correct that the controlling stockholders “reap[ed] a benefit” from the transaction. [read post]
5 Apr 2021, 6:00 am
In re Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 6:43 am
See Tanox, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Jun 2021, 7:29 pm
The Delaware Court of Chancery recently ruled that SmileDirectClub Inc. investors did not have derivative standing to charge that their stock value was disloyally devalued by their directors’ excessively-priced insider transaction because it originated before the initial public offering in which plaintiffs became stockholders, in In Re SmileDirectClub Inc. [read post]
16 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm
Today, we’re resuming our series on the antitrust law of transactions taking place on foreign soil. [read post]
29 Mar 2005, 4:11 pm
[corporate website], a unit of his company, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 3:00 am
Last week, in In Re Match Group Inc. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 3:00 am
That’s the question that the Chancery Court recently grappled with in In re Viacom Inc. [read post]