The Delaware Supreme Court recently confirmed that the adoption of an exculpatory charter amendment does not require a class vote under the Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL"). January 22, 2024 Section 242(b)(2) of the DGCL provides that the holders of the outstanding shares...
Plaintiffs also claimed that the adoption of the Reverse Split and the Series E Charter violated Section 242 of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the “DGCL”). Under Section 242(b)(1), a corporation with capital stock can amend its charter through a process in which the board first ap...
A. Gilchrist Sparks. IIICorporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar AssociationHelen BowersFinance at the University of Delaware's Department of Finance in the Lerner College of Business and EconomicsThe Business Lawyer
1 Insert "General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware Section 241" if the corporation has not yet received any payment for any of its stock. Otherwise, insert "Section 242". 2If stock restrictions, designations, preferences or other provisions are required, see LeapLaw's Miscellaneous ...
Delaware Journal of Corporate LawNowicki, Elizabeth, "Director Inattention and Director Protection under Delaware General Cor- poration Law Section 102(B)(7): A Proposal for Legislative Reform," Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 2008, 33 (3), 695-718....
aI,Richard H.Bell,being the Authorized Representative of Harvard Business Services, Inc.,the incorporator of RC Biotechnologies ,Inc.—a Delaware Corporation—hereby certifies pursuant to section 108 of the General Corporation Law of Delaware and to the best of my Knowledge that: I,理查H.Bell,是...
(To be completed if debtor is required to file periodic reports (e.g., forms 10K and 1OQ) with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is requesting relief under chapter 11.) Exhibit A is attached and made a ...
Robert Yohannon and Barbara Yohannon v. Keene Corporation; Gaf Corporation; Eagle-picherindustries, Inc.; Fibreboard Corporation; Garlock, Inc.;raymark Industries, Inc.; Delaware Insulation; Celotexcorporation; Owens-corning Fiberglas Corporation; Andowe
payment details were contingencies that the jury was required to resolve. Minnesota law precludes an award of prefiling interest where the factfinder must resolve such contingencies. Hutchinson Util. Comm'n v. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 775 F.2d 231, 242 (8th Cir. 1985); Unique Sys., Inc. v....
Proposed Amendments to Section 204 of the Delaware General Corporation Law Resolve Uncertainty Created by the Reasoning inC. Stephen Bigler