Search for: "Keith Paul Bishop"
Results 21 - 40 of 164
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2014, 8:30 am by joanheminway
In recent blog posts, two of my favorite bloggers, Keith Paul Bishop and Steve Bainbridge, have highlighted for our attention Delaware and California statutes providing (differently in each case) that an LLC and, at least in Delaware, its managers and... [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 8:57 am
Writes Keith Paul Bishop, "shocked" by the brief filed by 44 law professors in the Hobby Lobby case, in a post that Professor Bainbridge called "A truly great post that made me very happy." [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 5:07 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop's post raises that rather interesting question. [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
2 Mar 2017, 1:25 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop evaluates California law on the question: In the case of a California corporation, the answer is no. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:34 am by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop compares Delaware and California law on the attorney-corporate client privlege. [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 10:55 am by Steve Bainbridge
From Bishop's blog: Last month, the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) sent a letter to its California real estate and private equity managers asking that they take a number of... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
8 Nov 2015, 7:06 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop discusses the "tenuous link between the case and the recently released movie Bridge of Spies directed by Steven Spielberg. [read post]
25 Dec 2013, 2:53 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Prof Murray: Here, Professor Bainbridge kindly asks for my thoughts on Keith Paul Bishop's article Would Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. [read post]
27 Sep 2014, 5:47 am by Steve Bainbridge
Both Francis Pileggi and Keith Paul Bishop recently addressed an interesting development in LLC law. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 4:29 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop writes: In a posting yesterday, Professor Stephen Bainbridge poses the question “When an acquirer spots red flags: Should Microsoft’s board beware? [read post]
11 Jul 2013, 1:54 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop raises an interesting point: Yesterday’s post concerned the attorney-client privileged issues in Vice Chancellor J. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 6:39 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop reports that a US District Court, applying California law, declined to pierce the veil of a LLC to reach the entity's President: However, the Trust Funds present no evidence or even... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 2:00 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop raises an issue I've been pondering: Steve Hazen alerted me to the fact that California Attorney General Kamala D. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 10:38 pm by Steve Bainbridge
If data is the plural of anecdote, we need just one more example to go along with this classic story of plaintiff bar abuse from the pen of Keith Paul Bishop to declare that the evidence favors... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
19 Mar 2017, 4:42 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop notes a proposed amendment to the DGCL on how written consents are handled. [read post]
12 Aug 2017, 5:15 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop reports: As the name suggests, reverse veil piercing occurs when a third party outsider is able to reach corporate assets to satisfy claims against an individual shareholder. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 4:55 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Keith Paul Bishop explains: The Nevada Supreme Court has not expressly held that the laws for piercing the corporate veil under the alter-ego doctrine apply to LLCs, but it has applied... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
8 Aug 2017, 11:58 am by Steve Bainbridge
I've said this for years, of course, but Keith Paul Bishop points to evidence that confirms it: Simpson Thacher and Rivel Corporate Governance Intelligence Council took a look at all companies in the... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]