Search for: "Deutscher Tennis Bund"
Results 21 - 40
of 59
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2014, 4:31 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund – a fee-shifting by-law that required plaintiffs to bear the costs of intra-corporate litigation if the plaintiffs were not successful on the merits or did not achieve “in substance and amount, the full remedy sought. [read post]
14 May 2014, 6:02 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund, concluding that fee-shifting provisions in the bylaws of a Delaware corporation are facially valid under Delaware law and enforceable even against parties who joined the corporation before the bylaw was adopted. [1] Although this opinion arose in the context of a non-stock corporation, as discussed below, the opinion is relevant to traditional stock corporations as well. [read post]
21 May 2014, 2:44 pm
Deutscher Tennis Bund. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 4:06 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund decision. [read post]
22 Jul 2010, 2:15 pm
Thus, the jury was properly instructed to analyze the alleged restraints under the rule of reason, and their finding that the Federations failed to prove the relevant market defeated the Sec. 1 claim.The decision is Deutscher Tennis Bund v. [read post]
7 Jul 2010, 2:02 pm
Deutscher Tennis Bund v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 4:06 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund (as discussed here), a legislative initiative quickly emerged to restrict the case’s holding to Delaware non-stock companies. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:00 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund] to non-stock corporations, and to make clear that such liability may not be imposed on holders of stock in stock corporations. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 3:48 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund case when it upheld the facial validity of a fee-shirting by law. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 8:00 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund that allowed companies to unilaterally amend their bylaws and require an investor who files suit against a company to pay the corporation’s legal expenses unless the investor receives substantially all of the relief he or she seeks.The Senator urged the SEC to label such fee-shifting provisions as major risk factors and require companies to disclose them before any initial public offering. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 4:23 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund. [read post]
11 Jun 2014, 5:00 pm
Deutscher Tennis Bund] to non-stock corporations, and to make clear that such liability may not be imposed on holders of stock in stock corporations. [read post]
12 Oct 2016, 6:21 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund (“ATP Tour”). [1] In the case, the Delaware Supreme Court upheld the fee-shifting bylaw adopted by the directors of ATP Tour, Inc., largely by applying the contractarian principle. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 6:17 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund, broadly empowered the board vis-à-vis the shareholders through the board’s power to amend the bylaws. [read post]
11 May 2017, 6:23 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund, [2] despite the potential for such measures to deter “merger tax” lawsuits. [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 2:00 pm
The panel will be open to the public.Topics will include the NFL lockout, the possible NBA lockout, age and autonomy restrictions on professional athletes, digital media and the law, antitrust and sports, and many other topics.Yale Law SchoolYale Entertainment and Sports Law Association hosts a Panel Discussion on Sports and the Law: Current IssuesApril 4 2011 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.Room 120Moderator:MICHAEL MCCANN (Vermont Law School Professor of Law/Director of Sports Law Institute & Sports… [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 3:14 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund in which the Delaware Supreme Court last year upheld a unilaterally-adopted company bylaw by which a shareholder who sues the company and does not prevail may be forced to pay the company’s legal fees and expenses. [read post]
22 May 2014, 4:41 am
The Deutscher Tennis Bund and the Qatar Tennis Foundation sued the ATP in U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 3:00 pm
Deutscher Tennis Bund, Del. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 10:56 am
Deutscher Tennis Bund, where the Delaware Supreme Court held that fee-shifting provisions contained in a Delaware non-stock corporation’s bylaws were facially valid if not enacted for an improper purpose. [read post]
