Search for: "KEY v. KEY" Results 361 - 380 of 29,074
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2025, 9:01 pm by renholding
  As the article more thoroughly explains, based on specific statutory authority in Delaware’s General Corporation Law, longstanding foundational principles of Delaware corporate law, and an overlooked aspect of the seminal duty of oversight case Marchand v. [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 3:11 pm by Steve Bainbridge
In this post, I highlight the key changes: SB 21 creates new DGCL § 144(e)(2), which defines controlling shareholder as: [A]ny person that, together with such person’s affiliates and associates: Owns or controls a majority in voting power of the outstanding stock of the corporation entitled to vote generally in the election of directors; or Has the power functionally equivalent to that of a stockholder that owns or controls a majority in voting power of the outstanding stock of… [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 2:46 pm by Howard Knopf
At that time, I pointed out that: “ key Canadian SCC fair dealing decisions, including the landmark 2012 Alberta v. [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 11:11 am by Simone Lorenzi
However, it emphasized that the combination must have an effect beyond just the additive effects of its ingredients.Trade MarksEleonora Rosati summarized "Retromark Volume XV: the last six months in trade marks"by Darren Meale which covers the following key cases: Unicorn Studio Inc v Veronese [2024] EWHC 1098 (Ch), AGA Rangemaster Group v UK Innovations Group [2024] EWHC 1727 (IPEC), Shorts International Ltd v Google LLC [2024] EWHC… [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  So, to some extent, a single-minded focus on the Supreme Court as the central source of our present dilemmas—or a potential solution to them—reminds one of the drunk who looks for his missing car keys under the street lamp because the light is better there even though the car was parked many yards away in the dark. [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 12:00 am by David Pocklington
Although the Canon of 1603 initially secured a victory for ordinary bread over wafer bread in Anglican practice, wafers were reintroduced by the Victorian ritualists.[8] The question was litigated repeatedly, and wafers were famously declared illegal by the Purchas Judgment of 1871 – Elphinstone v Purchas (The Arches Court of Canterbury) [1871] UKPC – because they were not ‘the best and purest wheat bread’. [read post]
14 Feb 2025, 5:50 am by Edelboim Lieberman PLLC
Here are some of the key consequences (and potential consequences) of pursuing reorganization under Chapter 11. [read post]
14 Feb 2025, 4:56 am by Weronika Galka
Melanie Zanona, Frank Thorp V, and Garrett Haake report for NBC News. [read post]
14 Feb 2025, 4:06 am by Barry Sookman
The decision in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v Ross Intelligence Inc, No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. [read post]