Search for: "Holbrook v. Holbrook"
Results 161 - 180
of 220
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Apr 2010, 7:41 am
However, the outcome was that four out of the five local authorities won; Manchester lost and one will need to look into the mind of Jon Holbrook to find out why. [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 4:11 pm
In Kurz, et al. v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 8:00 am
Whatever the logic of the decision (and it is hard to complain about a decision trying to sidestep the formality of the omnibus proxy), the consequences are far reaching. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 8:00 am
See Weisman v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 8:00 pm
Before we discuss how VC Laster got to his decision, we will dwell a bit on how he didn't get there. [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 5:01 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
13 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 10:50 am
Apache Corporation v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 10:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 8:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
VC Laster, in invalidating a bylaw that would reduce the size of the board and remove incumbent directors, concluded that Section 141 (which gives shareholders the right to remove directors) was the exclusive method of removing directors under Delaware law. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
9 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 8:01 am
The Board of EMAK consisted of five directors and two vacancies. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 5:00 am
Holbrook, 2010 Del. [read post]