Search for: "14A-2 District Court Staff"
Results 1 - 20
of 23
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2015, 1:07 pm
Accordingly, the court asserted that the district court put undue weight on the distinction between a directive to management and a request for board action. [read post]
23 Jan 2024, 9:06 am
By Anne Sherry, J.D.Unusually, a company is asking a Texas district court for a declaratory judgment allowing it to exclude a shareholder proposal, rather than proceeding through the SEC’s no-action process. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 6:13 am
” Said the district court: “Coincidence is just a messenger sent by truth. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 12:47 pm
It appears that the SEC may address Rule 14a-8(b)(2) as part of a new staff legal bulletin before the 2011 proxy season. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 9:02 am
Chevedden in federal district court. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 5:07 am
District Court for the District of Delaware. [read post]
9 May 2019, 2:05 pm
When a public company receives an eligible shareholder proposal, it has four options: (1) include the proposal in the proxy statement; (2) negotiate with the proponent to secure a withdrawal; (3) seek a ruling on the proposal’s propriety in federal district court; or (4) seek an interpretive ruling from the SEC staff, known as a no-action letter, that the company may exclude the proposal. [read post]
5 Apr 2011, 5:31 am
District Judge Lee H. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 7:23 am
A decade ago, the biggest Corp Fin-related controversy was the shareholder proposal’s “ordinary business” exclusion basis and the SEC Staff’s Cracker Barrel no-action letter under Rule 14a-8(c)(7) (the basis has since been renumbered to 14a-8(i)(7)). [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 2:23 pm
” The Delaware District Court, however, did not agree. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 2:23 pm
” The Delaware District Court, however, did not agree. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 2:23 pm
” The Delaware District Court, however, did not agree. [read post]
14 Apr 2008, 4:41 am
A decade ago, the biggest Corp Fin-related controversy was the shareholder proposal's "ordinary business" exclusion basis and the SEC Staff's Cracker Barrel no-action letter under Rule 14a-8(c)(7) (the basis has since been renumbered to 14a-8(i)(7)). [read post]
2 Dec 2010, 8:19 am
Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]
19 Jan 2015, 3:52 am
District Court can decide whether a company is obligated to include shareholder proposals in its proxy materials. [read post]
28 Oct 2006, 1:43 pm
An SEC no-action letter and a federal district court ruling allowed the company to exclude the proposal based on rule 14a-8(i)(8), which allows the exclusion of a proposal relating to an election for membership on a company's board of directors. [read post]
19 Feb 2011, 3:56 pm
On this issue, the federal district court decision in Austin v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 4:47 am
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 10:27 am
Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 7:52 am
Rule interpretation by the SEC staff (which would not be binding) and courts is a cumbersome and impractical process for assuring workability and suitability. [read post]
