Search for: "State v. Bainbridge" Results 1 - 20 of 242
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
For many business economists and legal academics, the purpose of any business organization is simply stated: to maximize profits. [read post]
1 Feb 2024, 12:33 pm by Steve Bainbridge
— Steve Bainbridge (@PrawfBainbridge) January 31, 2024 Reading Tornetta v. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 3:30 am by Liz Dunshee
Stated differently, these derivative suits concern internal corporate affairs—matters that are traditionally governed by state corporate law and, therefore, more sensibly litigated in the Delaware Chancery. [read post]
26 Jan 2023, 11:29 am by Kevin LaCroix
Laster is quite correct when he quotes extensively from prior Delaware Supreme Court decisions stating that “the fiduciary duties of officers are the same as those of directors. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 12:15 am
Having read Professor Stephen Bainbridge's post about the origins of the judicial doctrine that directors must act on an informed basis, I passed along a reference to the California Supreme Court's in Fox v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 5:00 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Heaton and Todd Henderson July 18, 2022 Thank you to the inestimable Steve Bainbridge for allowing us the opportunity to discuss the Twitter v. [read post]
17 Jul 2022, 9:05 pm by Stephen M. Bainbridge
”[15] The purpose of a restatement is to clarify “the underlying principles of the common law” that have “become obscured by the ever-growing mass of decisions in the many different jurisdictions, state and federal, within the United States. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 9:05 pm by Stephen M. Bainbridge
Bainbridge, The Profit Motive: Defending Shareholder Value Maximization (2022). [8] Stout, supra note 2, at 165. [9] Dodge v. [read post]
26 Sep 2021, 8:08 pm by Francis Pileggi
Stephen Bainbridge on this case from his eponymous blog:   Major Delaware Corporate Law Development: Delaware Supreme Court “Revises” Aronson Standard for Demand Futility United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. [read post]