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.

Search

Refine your search

Content type
Tags
Author
Jurisdiction

103 results found

Article

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | USA | 12 Sep 2011

Georgia courts reaffirm exclusivity of appraisal remedy for dissatisfied shareholders in corporate mergers

In a series of recent decisions, Georgia courts have again and resoundingly refused the requests of shareholder plaintiffs to interfere with proposed corporate mergers.

Article

Morgan Lewis | USA | 28 Sep 2010

Section 338(h)(10) elections for S Corporations: traps for nonresident shareholders under a changing state law landscape

Taxpayers and advisors should give careful consideration to the changing landscape of state taxes in the context of elections under 26 U.S.C. 338(h)(10) (hereafter I.R.C. 338(h)(10)), a common taxplanning technique for taxable stock acquisitions.

Article

Jones Day | USA | 30 Jun 2010

Georgia (and New York) reexamine their IRC 338(h)(10) election for S corporations

The Georgia General Assembly recently passed House Bill 1138, which legislatively overrules the Georgia Supreme Court's recent decision in Trawick Construction Company, Inc. v. Georgia Department of Revenue.

Article

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP | USA | 10 Mar 2010

Georgia Supreme Court rules for taxpayer in 338(h)(10) case

In Trawick Construction Co. v. Georgia Dept. of Revenue, ____ S.E.2d ___, 2010 WL 678937 (Ga. Mar. 1, 2010), the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a Georgia Court of Appeals decision and held that gain from a deemed asset sale was not subject to Georgia corporate income tax.

Article

Seyfarth Shaw LLP | USA | 29 Jun 2009

Georgia Supreme Court holds that in-term restrictive covenants are subject to strict scrutiny

In Atlanta Bread Co. Int’l, Inc. v. Lupton-Smith, S08G1815, 2009 WL 1834215 (Ga. Jun. 29, 2009), the Georgia Supreme Court today confirmed that in-term restrictive covenants are subject to the same strict scrutiny standard applied to post-term covenants and the same reasonableness standards of time, territory, and scope.

Previous page 1 2 3 ...