Search for: "Duty v. General Finance Company" Results 81 - 100 of 689
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2009, 4:28 am
The New Company Law provides for management of the company by the shareholders, directors, officers and supervisors and provides default provisions concerning the duties and scope of authority for each. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Beyond these general challenges, I’ll turn to issues about AI, finance, and the law. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 6:10 am
Regency: Limited Partnerships and Fiduciary Duties Posted by Robert C. [read post]
20 Feb 2023, 4:46 am by Peter Mahler
Schecter rejected Middleton’s contention that he had the right to personally own the patents as “nothing more than revisionist history proffered in an attempt to steal the Company’s primary assets for himself” in breach of his duty of loyalty to the company. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 11:47 am
There is no general duty to disclose or to offer participation in other real estate development opportunities. [read post]
26 Jul 2016, 1:30 pm by Steve Gottlieb
— This commentary was broadcast on WAMC Northeast Report, July 26, 2016. [1] See generally the Brennan Center for material on public financing. [2] Arizona Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 7:42 am by Greg Daugherty
When structured properly, ESOPs often can be a great fit for a company and its employees. (1) Acosta v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 6:08 am by David DePaolo
Those premiums finance the carrier's operations, and a bit of it is set aside to finance the claims that are presented. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 8:47 pm by Laura E. Goldsmith
The SEC emphasizes that cybersecurity disclosures should be specific and tailored to each company, avoiding generic or boilerplate language. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:30 am by Wahab & Medenica LLC
A long form merger generally leaves the surviving company with one shareholder, a subsidiary of the acquirer. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiffs adequately pled a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence in Count V’s share-class claim, opining that it could not find "the district court’s dismissal of this claim harmless on the present record" and reinstated that claim for further proceeding;2. [read post]
17 Aug 2021, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiffs adequately pled a breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence in Count V’s share-class claim, opining that it could not find "the district court’s dismissal of this claim harmless on the present record" and reinstated that claim for further proceeding;2. [read post]