Search for: "Does Partnerships I-V"
Results 1 - 20
of 1,827
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2023, 4:34 am
In response, the majority partners argued that continuation of the partnership business post-dissolution does not revive a dissolved entity. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 8:53 am
” SEC v. [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 4:56 am
It’s a shame because I suspect the outcome might have been different if the issues had been briefed. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 4:41 am
The Partnership Agreement does not provide an exhaustive list of events which constitute a general partner withdrawal or otherwise explicitly opt-out of Section 121-402 (e) . . . [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 6:00 am
SEC v. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 3:53 am
Does Leonard’s partial performance of the alleged oral partnership agreement get around the statute of frauds governing conveyances of realty? [read post]
Rare Partnership Dissolution Decision Applies Deadlock Standard to Dissolution Under Partnership Law
22 Jan 2018, 3:44 am
” The Court’s Analysis of Deadlock In Seligson v Russo, 16 AD3d 253 [1st Dept 2005] – the most recent appeals court decision to consider Partnership Law 63(1)(f) – the court held, “[i]n light of the 50-50 deadlock between the parties and the consequent inability of the partnership to make any decisions, it was equitable to dissolve this partnership. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 3:31 am
Echoing the lower court’s decision, the court noted that “calling an organization a partnership does not make it one. [read post]
6 Sep 2022, 3:34 am
To be clear, I’m referring to partners in a general partnership. [read post]
22 May 2014, 8:51 am
See McCormick v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
” Pass v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 4:30 am
The appellant’s application for leave to appeal presented three issues for the high court’s consideration: First, does the lower court’s determination that the former partner wrongfully dissolved the partnership, based on the partnership agreement’s termination provisions, conflict with the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of “definite term” in its Gelman decision? [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 8:09 am
The words “undefined time” used in this section does not necessarily mean an “indefinite period”: see Keith v. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 8:06 am
This week our lawsuit, Donaldson and Guggenheim v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 3:22 am
Unlike Matter of Friedman and Matter of Murphy, this case does not involve a determination of the “fair value” of a dissenting shareholder’s shares pursuant to Business Corporation Law §§ 623 and 1118, but rather, involves the determination of the “value” of the shares of a partner who has wrongfully caused the dissolution of a partnership pursuant to Partnership Law § 69(2)(c)(II). [read post]
25 May 2014, 8:31 pm
The Supreme Court of Canada decision in McCormick v. [read post]
21 Feb 2022, 4:21 am
Last week, in Verdone v Verdone, 2022 WL 454048 [N. [read post]
6 Jul 2022, 12:15 am
The California Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 2008, unlike the General Corporation Law (Section 1905(b), does not expressly state that upon filing a certificate of cancellation, a limited partnership's powers, rights, and privileges "cease". [read post]
12 Mar 2023, 10:00 pm
For example, the case of Gonzalez v. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 6:00 am
SEC v. [read post]
