Search for: "In re Answers Corp. Shareholders Litigation"
Results 101 - 115
of 115
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Apr 2009, 5:00 am
It's a noteworthy case in which the majority shareholders took some serious lumps by presenting expert valuation testimony by the same appraiser who, before hostilities broke out, valued the combined companies at $7.6 million for purposes of an unconsummated sale to a third party but who later, on behalf of the majority shareholders, re-valued the companies for litigation purposes at a substantially lower number. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
In December 2008, after the Securities and Exchange Commission (”SEC”) concurred in the exclusion of shareholder proposals seeking greater disclosure of risks related to mortgage investments at Washington Mutual, a coalition of over 60 investors called on then President-Elect Obama to limit the ability of companies to exclude shareholder proposals related to corporate risk evaluation.[10] The corporate governance challenges for the companies being targeted by… [read post]
24 Nov 2008, 1:36 pm
Cross Country Paper Products Corp., 249 AD2d 341, 671 NYS2d 341 (2d Dept 1998). . . . [read post]
6 Oct 2008, 5:01 am
The answer is amazing - zero! [read post]
2 Oct 2008, 7:43 pm
Unocal’s board answered Pickens’ offer by making one of its own to all shareholders except Pickens. [read post]
7 Sep 2008, 2:50 pm
See In Re Lear Corp S'hlder Litig., 926 A.2d 92 (Del. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 1:25 pm
: (IP finance), Facebook removes international access to Scrabulous, except from India: (Ars Technica), (Techdirt), Reverse engineering can resolve conflict between standardisation and competition: (Techdirt), Benefits of piracy aren’t always in the expected places: (Techdirt) Events 1-3 September: Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Property and Promotion, and WIPO conference on ‘Development and IP: Building synergies… [read post]
16 Aug 2008, 2:43 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: Belgium - eBay wins ruling against L’Oreal in dispute over liability for counterfeit goods sold in online auctions: (Managing Intellectual Property), (Counterfeit Chic), (IPKat), (Class 46), (Techdirt), (Ars Technica) US CAFC holds that copying free software without complying with license is copyright infringement: Robert Jacobsen v… [read post]
11 Jul 2008, 4:30 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included: ACTA continues to be discussed and debated: (Michael Geist), (Intellectual Property Watch), (Public Knowledge), (Techdirt), (Managing Intellectual Property), (Public Knowledge), (Public Knowledge), (Public Knowledge), Apotex challenge to Acular LS patent barred by res judicata: Roche Palo Alto & Allergan v Apotex:… [read post]
20 Jun 2008, 8:07 am
: (Spicy IP), Latin America: Merck Serono signs distribution agreement with Bristol-Myers Squibb for portfolio of established pharmaceutical brands in Latin America: (IP tango), US: Biotech industry growth to slow due to funding pressures and competition from biosimilars: (Managing Intellectual Property), US: House Commerce Committee posts responses to its questions on biogenerics; not surprisingly, the views run the gamut: (FDA Law Blog), US: Biosimilar debate heats up at BIO: (Managing… [read post]
21 Aug 2007, 4:16 pm
” In re Citx Corp., 448 F.3d 672, 678 (3d Cir. 2006). [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 11:43 am
Shareholders Litigation, [Current] Fed. [read post]
3 May 2007, 11:55 am
Thus, News Corp's proposal does not place the Bancroft family in a position of conflict vis-a-vis the minority shareholders. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 1:14 am
The dispute centers on a British author's missing audio files of interviews with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, made during the very period of class claims in In re Oracle Corp. [read post]
16 Oct 2006, 10:30 am
In those actions, it seems, the parties will be allowed to re-litigate whether class certification is appropriate, while the lawyers who personally satisfied their pre-lawsuit invesigation duties will have one, and only one, shot at class certification. [read post]
