Transfer pricing issues affecting cross-border taxation took center stage in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury’s 2021-2022 Priority Guidance Plan (Plan). The Plan identifies and prioritizes...
Learn all about the use of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in commercial real estate transactions. By investing in a REIT, investors can own a share of diversified portfolio of large commercial real...
Many pre-seed start-ups do not engage competent legal counsel early in the process, and use an online legal technology company that offers cookie-cutter forms not tailored to the company's business...
Amidst talk of increased regulatory oversight and enforcement actions, public company boards and stockholders may consider the benefits of a going private transaction. Going private transactions are often...
Do you have to negotiate employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation settlements or severance agreements? In this expert interview, Bhavin Patel, Assistant General Counsel for a Fortune Global...
In The Williams Companies, Inc. v. Wolosky, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Delaware Chancery Court’s ruling, in favor of stockholders, that the board of The Williams Companies failed to demonstrate that its adoption of a so-called “poison pill” was a reasonable response to a specific stockholder activist threat. The Williams Companies board adopted the disputed shareholder rights plan at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic in response to volatile energy prices and uncertainties caused by the pandemic. The unprecedented plan included extreme features, including a 5% trigger and a broad “acting in concert” provision. Check out this article discussing the Delaware Chancery Court’s opinion.
READ NOW »
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates
Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+