Patrick Egan Secures Pre-Answer Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Action in Nassau County Supreme Court Read more here: https://lnkd.in/eVwtAG59
Winget, Spadafora & Schwartzberg, LLP’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
Head of Business Development & Sales, Americas @ qashqade AG |President, qashqade U.S. Inc, Private Markets Calculations Software, Managed Services & Advisory
As I sit here pondering what to have for lunch today, and catching up on some reading, I came upon this insightful article from Fundfire on the recent Supreme Court action on the proposed SEC PF regulations, and the potential for unknown unknowns. 🧐🧐🧐 #SEC #privatemarkets #regulation #regpf
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
What is the corporate veil? How can it protect me and what does it mean when it is pierced? Today, 50% of piercing the veil court cases succeed because owners are failing to properly follow corporate formality requirements. Read more about it here: http://bit.ly/40vbKxs
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
What is the corporate veil? How can it protect me and what does it mean when it is pierced? Today, 50% of piercing the veil court cases succeed because owners are failing to properly follow corporate formality requirements. Read more about it here: http://bit.ly/40vbKxs
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
The US #Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of #NewYork recently issued a ruling in In re #MerconCoffee Corporation invalidating insider releases in a proposed chapter 11 plan on the basis that the releases were improper retention-related transfers. Our alert discusses the primary focus of the confirmation hearing and provides key takeaways.
SDNY Bankruptcy Court strikes down insider releases in chapter 11 plan as improper retention-related transfers
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
https://lnkd.in/gsRpWw99. ALL THESE CASES ARE GONE VIA DISMISSAL SOON.. AS I HAVE SAID FROM DAY: THESE CASES ARE GONE SOON (DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE), CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE, AND ARREST/CONVICTIONS EXPUNGED PERMANENTLY AND CASES SEALED. THEN TRUMP’S 4 CASES ARE NEXT PLUS THE 2 FALSE/FAKE IMPEACHMENTS. THEN WE TURN OUR LEGAL GUNS ON THE US-DOJ AND THE FBI AND THE CENSORSHIP INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX FOR TRILLIONS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ https://lnkd.in/gsRpWw99
Appeals court rules Jan. 6 defendant’s sentence unlawfully enhanced
washingtontimes.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Expect unexpected fallout from a recent Supreme Court ruling on criminal asset forfeiture. Along with other decisions, the Court handed down McIntosh v. United States, No. 22-7386, issued April 17, 2024. The upshot to the ruling is if a prosecutor in seeking a federal indictment neglects to include a provision giving notice that the government seeks forfeiture of assets used in furtherance of the alleged crime or purchased with proceeds of criminal conduct, he or she may be spared embarrassment and allowed to fix the problem. But the Court did not address the collateral damage of such a blunder, including the impact on third party “innocent” purchasers for value. That means someone who purchases the assets unknowingly from the defendant between the time of indictment and the time the case is resolved. If there is no lien of record and the case receives little press, the third party in most instances will have no reason to know what’s coming. learn more https://lnkd.in/gNKJh9ms #SupremeCourt #CriminalDefense #FederalCrimes
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Under the recent #unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, #plaintiffs bringing #whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove that their #employers acted with retaliatory intent. Learn more about this case: https://lnkd.in/ejrgz-A9
The US Supreme Court Rules in Murray v. UBS
cvsoci.al
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Here's a more in-depth discussion of the Supreme Court decision in Connelly, and how it may impact a buy-sell agreement. We're here to help. https://lnkd.in/gCmMz2XE
Buy-Sell Agreements Are Dead! (Just Kidding!)
robinglen.com
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
What are malicious falsehood claims ❔ The recent Supreme Court judgment in George v Cannell and another [2024] UKSC 19 clarified some key points regarding damages in malicious falsehood claims and the presumption of financial loss under section 3(1) of the Defamation Act 1952. In our recent Solutions article, Sam Baxter and Jamie McConnell discuss malicious falsehood claims, what the Supreme Court clarified, and what does this decision means in practice. Find out more below ⬇ #SupremeCourt #LegalInsight
What does the recent Supreme Court decision mean for malicious falsehood…
cvsoci.al
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
In a recent ruling, the HCMC Court took a fairly open approach to the validity and enforceability of Liquidated Damages (LD) when recognizing the principle of freedom of contract. Nevertheless, the Court still stated that the sum of damages predetermined by the agreement between parties would be reviewed if it was too high compared to the actual damage. This may be the first case recognizing LD and could open up more diverse approach on LD for other courts. Check out full judgment below #Liquidated damages #freedom of contract
To view or add a comment, sign in
1,779 followers