Search for: "In re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation"
Results 1 - 16
of 16
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Dec 2023, 12:22 pm
” Urban Partnership Bank v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 6:00 am
In re Cellular Telephone P’ship Litig., Coordinated C.A. [read post]
16 May 2022, 6:31 am
In In re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation (Mar. 9, 2022), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc., which was the 98.12% controlling partner of Salem Cellular Telephone Company (the “Partnership”), froze out the minority partners by acquiring the Partnership’s assets and liabilities and then liquidating the Partnership. [read post]
16 May 2022, 6:31 am
In In re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation (Mar. 9, 2022), a wholly-owned subsidiary of AT&T, Inc., which was the 98.12% controlling partner of Salem Cellular Telephone Company (the “Partnership”), froze out the minority partners by acquiring the Partnership’s assets and liabilities and then liquidating the Partnership. [read post]
10 Mar 2022, 3:25 pm
The case is In re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation, coordinated case number 6885-VCL, civil actions 6886 and 6908, in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 3:28 pm
The case is In re Cellular Tel. [read post]
8 Dec 2021, 6:00 am
In re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation, Coordinated C.A. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 4:32 pm
”) leased a portion of its three-acre commercial property in Chardon, Ohio to Northern Ohio Cellular Telephone Company (now, “New Par”) and also granted New Par an easement on that same property. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 4:32 pm
”) leased a portion of its three-acre commercial property in Chardon, Ohio to Northern Ohio Cellular Telephone Company (now, “New Par”) and also granted New Par an easement on that same property. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 9:00 am
In Re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation, C.A. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 9:00 am
In Re Cellular Telephone Partnership Litigation, C.A. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 5:32 am
”) (citations omitted); In re Cellular Telephones, 2014 WL 7793690, at *9 (Mag. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 8:34 am
The court rejects this argument as well, citing to the statutory language and to In re Jiffy Lube. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 2:22 am
The Court re-iterated that the proposed amendments did not add any material facts to those already pleaded. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 8:35 am
Cellco Partnership (N.D. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 8:16 am
” We’re on the record for our view that litigation rarely results in billion-dollar payments, so we’ll give credit where it’s due. [read post]
