Search for: "Kahn v. Kahn" Results 101 - 120 of 789
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Mar 2021, 3:02 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In any case, since RFL’s retainer was signed only on behalf of the LIMGA shareholders, not on behalf of any entity in which Gabay or LIMA had a legal interest, RFL did not have a duty to the plaintiffs (see Strujan v Kaufman & Kahn, LLP, 168 AD3d 1114, 1115; Betz v Blatt, 160 AD3d 696, 698), and the alleged conflict of interest did not arise. [read post]
5 Dec 2020, 7:52 am by Anna Salvatore, Tia Sewell
Matthew Kahn analyzed the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Van Buren v. [read post]
3 Dec 2020, 1:01 pm by Anna Salvatore
Matthew Kahn analyzed the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Van Buren v. [read post]
5 Sep 2020, 5:29 am
Stockholder Litigation (“HomeFed”), the Delaware Court of Chancery considered on a motion to dismiss whether a squeeze-out merger by a controlling stockholder complied with the procedural framework set forth in Kahn v. [read post]
July 13, 2020) This case illustrates that the Court of Chancery will apply the entire fairness standard to review a squeeze-out merger by a controller, if the controller engages in substantive economic discussions before the company has enacted the procedural protections outlined in Kahn v. [read post]
18 Aug 2020, 9:15 am by Rebecca Tapscott
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Kahn v. [read post]