At the New York Business Divorce Blog, Peter Mahler has an interesting post about recent New York case law interpretin
Posts for "Alternative Business Entities" filter
Post date: Posted on: February 10, 2014
Post date: Posted on: January 28, 2014
Berger Harris partner and Business Law Basics co-author Brian Gottesman was interviewed by Tibor Dani of Family BusinessCast on the issue of operating agreements/governing instruments for closely-held (particularly family-owned) businesses.
Post date: Posted on: January 16, 2014
The Chancery Daily is reporting that the Plaintiff in Aibar Huatuco, M.D. v. Satellite Healthcare, CA No. 8465-VCG (Del. Ch. Dec.
Post date: Posted on: January 14, 2014
Details here.
Post date: Posted on: January 14, 2014
LLC Law Monitor has the details of
Post date: Posted on: January 13, 2014
At New York Business Divorce, Peter Mahler (who has graciously linked to Business Law Basics in his blogroll) identifies 10 classic blunders in business divorce cases.
Post date: Posted on: January 8, 2014
UPDATED 1/8/14 at 3:09 PM: Governor Markell's office confirms that Chancellor Strine has been nominated for the position of Chief Justice of th
Post date: Posted on: January 2, 2014
In Aibar Huatuco, M.D. v. Satellite Healthcare, CA No. 8465-VCG (Del. Ch. Dec.
By: Lisa R. Stark
Post date: Posted on: December 26, 2013
In The Ravenswood Investment Company, L.P. v. Winmill, C.A. No. 3730 (Del. Ch. Nov. 27, 2013), the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to grant summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on its claim that a corporation’s issuance of stock options was invalid for failure to obtain approval of the stock option plan by the corporation’s stockholders in a manner that complied with DGCL requirements regarding the dating of stockholder consents. More specifically, plaintiff argued, based on Section 228(c) of the DGCL and the Chancery Court’s decision in H-M Wexford LLC v. Encorp, Inc., 832 A.2d 129 (Del. Ch. 2003), that the stockholder consent which approved the plan was invalid because it was not individually dated by the stockholder, but rather bore a pre-printed, “as of” date. Section 228(c) of the DGCL reads: “every written consent shall bear the date of signature of each stockholder … who signs the consent….” In H-M Wexford v. Encorp, Inc., the Delaware Court of Chancery declined to dismiss a claim that stockholder consents were invalid where multiple stockholders executed consents all containing a pre-printed “as of” date. The Court’s ruling in H-M Wexford v. Encorp, Inc. appeared to be based on a strict construction of Section 228(c):
By: Lisa R. Stark
Post date: Posted on: December 23, 2013
Tags: Alternative Business Entities, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporations, Equity / Chancery, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships