Search for: "STANDARD PARTS COMPANY v. D & J INVESTMENT COMPANY" Results 61 - 80 of 214
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Nov 2011, 8:00 am by J Robert Brown Jr.
  Because they are, for the most part, considered "independent" under Delaware law and the listing standards of the relevant exchange. [read post]
In 1975, the SEC found, “there [was] virtually no investor interest in voluminous information” related to climate.[9] That was true, in part, because there was no “uniform method by which the environmental effects of corporate practices may be described,” and in part because “both the costs to registrants and the administrative burdens involved . . . would be excessive. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:20 am by Kevin LaCroix
As the authors note, the decision has important implications for companies and their D&O insurers, as well as for claims going forward. [read post]
16 Aug 2020, 12:49 pm by Russell Knight
R. 213(j) I have republished the Illinois Supreme Court Standard Marital Interrogatories at the end of this article. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:49 am by MOTP
IB further asserted that Dillard, shortly after funding the account, began a trading strategy that consisted of buying and selling mining company stocks and oil and mineral futures. [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 8:06 am
The second, and much more achievable in part is the opening to human rights and sustainability based business conduct. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 12:00 am
The precedence of company law should be clarified by the legislator – by the German legislator when codifying the conflict rules for companies and by the European legislator when codifying the conflict rules for successions upon death (supra V.). [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 9:28 am
Pruett, 1998 WL 340420 (4th Cir. 1998) (Luttig, J.) [read post]