We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics. If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
On February 26, 2010, the Delaware Court of Chancery, in an opinion addressing the first modern triggering of a shareholdder rights plan, upheld (1) the validity of a “NOL” shareholder rights plan that contained a 4.99 “flip-in” triggering threshold, (2) the directors’ decision to lower the triggering threshold in light of recent acquisitions, and (3) the board’s subsequent decision to dilute an acquiring person who deliberately crossed the pill’s threshold
On February 1, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion denying a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to delay the Enzo Biochem, Inc. (“the Company”) shareholder meeting
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted summary judgment on whistleblower claims brought by former compliance auditors of a global, public company
Companies routinely offer indemnification and advancement rights to their directors and officers, but quite often those rights are reduced to written statements appearing in multiple corporate documents, including articles of incorporation, bylaws, employment agreements and indemnification agreements
