Search for: "State of Delaware v. Cooper." Results 21 - 40 of 228
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jan 2023, 4:48 am by Peter Mahler
In both those cases, the courts were willing to consider non-cooperation between co-equal managers only insofar as it impacted the LLC’s ability to function in the context of the operating agreement and its stated purpose. [read post]
12 Aug 2019, 3:22 am by Peter Mahler
Delaware Chancery Court Dissolves Failing Limited Partnership Based on General Partner’s Non-Cooperation with Receivers In GMF ELCM Fund, L.P. v ELCM HCRE GP LLC, C.A. [read post]
30 May 2018, 3:13 pm by Eugene Volokh
From yesterday's Delaware Supreme Court decision in Everett v. [read post]
13 Oct 2007, 11:44 am
Cooper's opinion noted that courts in other states that have similar statutory language about who can adopt had reached this conclusion, citing cases from Indiana, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Vermont. [read post]
21 May 2010, 1:26 pm by David Cosgrove
For example, an arbitrator’s dismissal or preclusion of a claimant’s non-Delaware state securities law claims would leave the claimant with no recourse for the alleged violation of state model securities laws since the Delaware Securities Act provides no private cause of action relating to or arising from investment advice, including unlawful or unregistered investment advice. [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 3:02 pm
In a recent decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Federal Mogul Global, Inc., No. 01-10578 (JKF) (Bankr. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 2:25 pm by John A. Emmons
  Curtis Bradley and Jack Goldsmith examined the legal efficacy of the U.S. government prosecuting entities owned by foreign states, in the context of Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Beck, et al.
Pa. 1985) (can’t tell what state’s law); Seiden v. [read post]
28 Nov 2012, 11:38 am by mpeters
       According to the complaint in Kickflip Inc. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 5:52 am
’”In light of the holding in [Bauman], the court finds that [defendant’s] compliance with Delaware’s registration statutes − mandatory for doing business within the state − cannot constitute consent to jurisdiction, and the Delaware Supreme Court’s [prior] decision . [read post]