Joint Statement of the Management Board (Vorstand) and the
... Netherlands, registered in the Dutch commercial register (Kamer van Koophandel)
under no. 67383823 (the "Bidder") has published an offer document within the meaning of Section 11 of the German Securities Acquisition and Takeover Act
(Wertpapiererwerbs- und Übernahmegesetzes - "WpÜG") ("Offer Documen ...
- Samarqand Dori
... Provide in Position about general meeting of shareholders granting to
shareholders, before carrying out of general meeting of the shareholders, the
necessary information under the agenda, including a position of the supervisory
board concerning the general meeting agenda;
Can involve independent exp ...
SR-FINRA-2017-004 - Text of the Proposed Rule Change
... -xx-xx). A material failure to comply with these guidelines will result in the proposed
rule change being deemed not properly filed. See also Rule 0-3 under the Act (17
The Notice section of this Form 19b-4 must comply with the guidelines for publication
in the Federal Register as well ...
united states securities and exchange commission - corporate
... of preferred dividend rights under a shareholders agreement providing for contractual preference rights. Under the shareholders
agreement, shareholders of the Company agreed among themselves to provide for an arrangement whereby shares issued in the
Company’s April 2015 financing would provide the r ...
Practice Note 2 (PN2)
... required by the laws and regulations to which an offeror or offeree
company is subject (and is not otherwise proposed to be published
by the offeror or offeree company) and the parties have
encountered genuine practical difficulties (time-wise or otherwise)
in meeting the reporting requirements set ...
united states securities and exchange commission - corporate
... MINNEAPOLIS, MN – January 23, 2013 —JAB Beech Inc. (“JAB”), a member of the Joh. A Benckiser Group today announced the successful completion of the
tender offer by its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pine Merger Sub, Inc. (“Purchaser”), for all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Caribou Coffee Co ...
Memorandum Date 10 March 2016 From Reinhard Dammann Direct
... If a specialized insolvency court is declared competent with respect to a debtor which has its
registered office or an establishment in the jurisdiction of another insolvency court in France,
the Macron law provides that the president (or a delegated judge) of such court will
automatically become a ...
E-mail Communication for Provisional Sentence Summons
... summons in South Africa?
Electronic mail communication can only be produced as evidence by using an output device, such as a computer
screen, printer or data projector.19 The preferred method of production in South African courts is a computer
printout in view of the fact that South Africa is not ye ...
Curetis shall hold its Annual General Shareholders` Meeting on
... 951, 1117 CE Schiphol-Oost/Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The meeting is scheduled to
commence at 13.30 hours CEST; registration starts at 12.30 hours CEST. Also Curetis will
be offering electronic pre-voting starting on May 20, 2016 at 08:00 hours CEST.
A copy of the convening notice for the AGM, incl ...
Judgment Title: In the Matter of Tralee Beef and Lamb Ltd (In
... responsibility on to the Courts with (as the learned High Court judge pointed out) no
legitimus contradictor of what Mr. Coyle says. More neutrally put, he will maintain, for
unspecified reasons, a distance between himself and the restriction proceedings.
Section 150 of the Com ...
... • The Supervisory Board has also set itself a goal in
relation to the number of its independent members.
Pursuant to Item 5.4.2 of the GCGC, a supervisory
board member “shall not be considered independent
especially if he or she has a special personal or
commercial relationship with the company, it ...
... ancient in origin - in the Havana case (at pp 1043-4) Viscount
SIMONDS referred to a decision dating back to 1626 - and had been
consistently observed. They were settled rules which bound all
courts (see Havana case, supra, at pp 1048-9). In the Miliangos case
supra, the House of Lords, by a majorit ...
United States v. Payner
United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.The case had been brought as the fruit of Operation Trade Winds, a lengthy Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into the use of offshore accounts in tax havens by American citizens attempting to evade tax liability and hide assets, some of which were believed to have been derived from criminal activities. At one point, a private investigator working with a Florida IRS agent had taken the executive's briefcase for the IRS to open and duplicate the documents within, then returned the briefcase. (This aspect was described by the district judge as the ""briefcase caper"", a sobriquet which has subsequently become attached to the case as a whole). Subpoenas based on the information in those documents yielded the documents used in a prosecution later of Ohio businessman Jack Payner.Lewis Powell wrote for the majority that prior case law gave Payner no reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents used to build the case against him. While the Court, too, was outraged by the IRS agent's disregard for the law, the judicial branch's supervisory power was meant to be used only against its own excesses, and Congress was better equipped to remedy such breaches of the Constitution since there were no ways to limit how a court might apply such a rule. Thurgood Marshall's dissent noted not only the extent to which the IRS had gone in planning the briefcase caper but that its agents had purposely been instructed to take advantage of the loophole created by the court's standing rule. Later commentators read the case as expanding the standing rule, and indicating a shift to focusing on the deterrence effect of applying the exclusionary rule instead of the courts' supervisory role.