Search for: "Companies A, B, and C"
Results 8401 - 8420
of 12,883
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 May 2012, 1:51 pm
” B. [read post]
9 May 2012, 10:20 am
Rethink (a) substance of what we protect and (b) how we go about protecting it, use new media, interact with customers/public. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:14 pm
The existence of Side B and C coverage means that the company might have an interest in proceeds and sets up a conflict between the officers and directors, on one hand, and the company and its creditors, on the other hand. [read post]
8 May 2012, 12:21 pm
For this reason, the group suggested that SEC rules clearly provide that an offering of fund shares pursuant to Rule 506 or Rule 144A utilizing general solicitation or general advertising will not be a public offering for the purposes of Section 3(c)(1) or 3(c)(7) of the Investment Company Act. [read post]
8 May 2012, 10:55 am
Written by: Jay B. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:43 am
Need plan B, C, and D. [read post]
8 May 2012, 7:06 am
In contrast to more traditional valuation analyses based on (i) a discounted cash flow analysis, (ii) selected company analyses and (iii) selected transaction analyses, an LBO analysis does not purport to provide any indication of the intrinsic or inherent value of a business but instead merely indicates the price that a private equity firm might be willing to pay based on several critical assumptions including, without limitation, (a) an assumed capital structure; (b) a PE… [read post]
8 May 2012, 6:42 am
Approving the ECJ’s judgment in Re Eurofood IFSC Ltd, Re (C-341/04) (2006), it was held that the onus was on the U.S. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:00 am
In Section 1b, Item B. [read post]
8 May 2012, 2:00 am
The following is our monthly featured post from Terry Nelson, Peter Fetzer and Michael Primo of Foley & Lardner filling you in on the latest developments in the world of investment management. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:07 pm
C. [read post]
7 May 2012, 4:03 pm
A fund may rely on Section 3(c)(1) of the Investment Company Act if its outstanding securities are beneficially owned by not more than 100 persons and it is not making and does not propose to make a public offering of its securities. [read post]
7 May 2012, 12:19 pm
c. [read post]
7 May 2012, 6:51 am
And, of course, as the court pointed out, §43(c)(6) bars dilution claims against federally registered marks, adding an additional wrinkle. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:21 am
Under Virginia law, a partner can apply for dissolution of a partnership under Virginia Code § 50-73.117(5) upon grounds that: (a) The economic purpose of the partnership is likely to be unreasonably frustrated; (b) Another partner has engaged in conduct relating to the partnership business which makes it not reasonably practicable to carry on the business in partnership with that partner; or (c) It is not otherwise reasonably practicable to carry on the partnership business… [read post]
7 May 2012, 3:00 am
Driscoll who handed down two decisions early last month (a) denying Spota's application to stay the eviction proceeding, (b) granting Shure's application to dissolve the LLC, (c) ordering a hearing on Shure's request to appoint a receiver and for injunctive relief, and (d) permitting the business to continue to operate until its "eventual dissolution." [read post]
7 May 2012, 3:00 am
Driscoll who handed down two decisions early last month (a) denying Spota's application to stay the eviction proceeding, (b) granting Shure's application to dissolve the LLC, (c) ordering a hearing on Shure's request to appoint a receiver and for injunctive relief, and (d) permitting the business to continue to operate until its "eventual dissolution. [read post]
6 May 2012, 8:15 pm
http://bit.ly/Ix11oj || In New Normal, costs + rates matter 27 Apr LEGAL PROCESS OUTSOURCING LiveMint / WSJ reports CPA Global LPO headcount in India has dropped b/c demand down, work shifting to US http://bit.ly/wEB2yN 24 Feb ABA Ethics 20/20 Comm outsourcing report http://bit.ly/wLLiWU || imo, no big changes. [read post]
4 May 2012, 1:06 pm
§§ 411.37(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3)(2004), was reasonable. [read post]
4 May 2012, 12:38 pm
B. [read post]
