Search Results (11560)
Documents on Corporate Law
Show: results per page
|Bluebonnet to Sell Water Subsidiary|
Sutherland Asbill Brennan LLP;
April 24, 2014, previously published on April 22, 2014Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative in Texas has announced that it is selling its water subsidiary, Corix Utilities (Texas) Inc. Corix Utilities is a water utility operator that already has a significant presence in Central Texas.
|Conflict Minerals Disclosure Due Date Approaching; While SEC Staff Issues New Guidance, Court’s Decision Creates Some Uncertainty: D.C. Circuit Holds That Portion of Conflict Minerals Disclosure Rule Violates the First Amendment; Absent Further Developments, Issuers Should Continue to Prepare to File Disclosures by Monday, June 2|
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
April 23, 2014, previously published on April 17, 2014The deadline-May 31, 2014, extended to June 2 because May 31 falls on a Saturday-for conflict minerals disclosures responsive to the SEC’s rule under Section 13(p) of the Securities Exchange Act, is quickly approaching.
|Proposed Amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law|
Christopher M. DiVirgilio, Allison L. Land, Edward P. Welch; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;
April 22, 2014, previously published on April 17, 2014 On April 17, 2014, the Corporation Law Section of the Delaware State Bar Association proposed legislation that, if adopted, would amend the Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL) in a number of important ways. Proposed amendments include:
|Conflict Minerals: SEC Guidance and Appellate Court Decision|
Laura D. Richman; Mayer Brown LLP;
April 21, 2014, previously published on April 16, 2014The Division of Corporation Finance of the US Securities and Exchange Commission has updated its frequently asked questions regarding its conflict minerals rule, providing guidance on nine conflict minerals topics. The new FAQs provide timely direction for public companies that need to file their...
|Federal Appeals Court Holds SEC Conflict Minerals Rules Violate Free Speech|
Barbara A. Jones, Ira N. Rosner, Elliot H. Scherker; Greenberg Traurig, LLP;
April 21, 2014, previously published on April 15, 2014On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in an opinion authored by Senior Circuit Judge Randolph, held in National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. (Case No. 13-5252), that portions of the...
|India’s New Corporate Social Responsibility Requirements - Beware of the Pitfalls|
Theodore T. Chung, Karen P. Hewitt, Glyn Powell, Sumesh Sawhney, Sheila L. Shadmand; Jones Day;
April 21, 2014, previously published on April 2014In August 2013, the Indian parliament passed the Indian Companies Act, 2013 (the "New Act"), which has replaced the Companies Act of 1956. The New Act has made far-reaching changes affecting company formation, administration and governance, and it has increased shareholder control over...
|D.C. Circuit Holds that Conflict Minerals Provision Violates First Amendment|
James R. Burke; Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP;
April 21, 2014, previously published on April 17, 2014On April 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the "Circuit Court") issued its "conflict minerals" opinion in National Association of Manufacturers, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. The...
|What is a "Reasonable" Notice Period When the Contract is Silent?|
Dentons Canada LLP;
April 16, 2014, previously published on April 10, 2014This was the question that came before Mr Justice Norris towards the end of 2013 in the case of Hamsard 3147 Limited trading as "Mini Mode Childrenswear", JS Childrenswear Limited (in liquidation)) v. Boots UK Limited.
|Transparency and Trust in UK Business|
Dentons Canada LLP;
April 16, 2014, previously published on April 10, 2014The UK Government has announced its plan to make details of who owns and controls UK companies publicly available.
|SEC Conflict Minerals Disclosure Requirements Ruled Unconstitutional|
Andrew J. Brady, Brian V. Breheny, Hagen J. Ganem, Marc S. Gerber; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP;
April 16, 2014, previously published on April 14, 2014The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled earlier today that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s conflict minerals disclosure requirements are unconstitutional and remanded the matter to the district court for further consideration.