SLB 14I: Impact of Board Discussion on 2018 NALs
Posted by Arthur H. Kohn and Katy Yang, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Sunday, July 8, 2018 Editor's Note: Arthur H. Kohn is a partner and Katy Yang is an associate at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. This post is based on a Cleary Gottlieb memorandum by Mr. Kohn and Ms. Yang. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes The Case for Shareholder Access to the Ballot by (discussed on the Forum here), and Private Ordering and the Proxy Access Debate by Lucian Bebchuk and Scott Hirst (discussed on the Forum here). When the staff (the “Staff”) of the Division of Corporation Finance of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) released Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14I (“SLB 14I”) last fall, it seemed that the Staff was potentially signaling that it would be taking a more issuer-friendly approach in its review of no-action letter requests (“NALs”). In particular, the language…
Read more detail on Recent Business Law posts –
Legal notice about the SLB 14I: Impact of Board Discussion on 2018 NALs
rubric : Hukuki Net Legal News is not responsible for the privacy statements or other content from Web sites outside of the Hukuki.net site. Please refer the progenitor link to check the legal entity of this resource hereinabove.
Do you need High Quality Legal documents or forms related to SLB 14I: Impact of Board Discussion on 2018 NALs?
- Comment to the Federal Reserve Board on Regulation II: Where's the Competitive Impact Analysis?
- Markham Board of Trade Mayor’s Business Address & Luncheon May 8, 2018
- Stanford Digital Impact Convening – February 2018
- Unsatisfactory rating voided because employee's "performance review," failed to comply with the employer's own procedures and thus undermined the integrity of the process Joyce v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03433, Appellate Division, First Department The Appellate Division annulled the determination of respondent New York City Department of Education [DOE] sustaining the "unsatisfactory" rating for the 2010-2011 academic year give to John Joyce, a tenured teacher. The court said that the record demonstrates "deficiencies in the performance review process" that resulted in Mr. Joyce being given an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year. Citing Matter of Gumbs v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 125 AD3d 484, and Matter of Richards v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., 117 AD3d 605, the Appellate Division noted that these deficiencies "were not merely technical, but undermined the integrity and fairness of the process." Mr. Joyce had received a satisfactory rating for the previous academic year and, in contravention of its own procedures, DOE failed to place him on notice that he was in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating for the 2010-2011 academic year until after April 28, 2011. Although DOE's procedures required that tenured teachers in danger of receiving an unsatisfactory rating have "formal observations including a pre-observation and post-observation conference by the principal … as part of a prescriptive plan to improve their teaching," Mr. Joyce received only one formal observation which took place one week before the end of the academic year and was not part of a prescriptive plan to improve his performance as a teacher. The decision is posted on the Internet at: http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03433.htm
- The Government’s Review of the Copyright Act and the Copyright Board – What’s at Stake? ALSO Presentation May 5 2018
- UND STEP Course on Catholic Social Thought Week 2 Discussion Questions
- CNBC: Mergers & Acquisitions Discussion With Joseph Perella, Terry Meguid & Peter Weinberg
- UND STEP Course on Catholic Social Thought Week 3 Discussion Questions
- UK Authorities’ Discussion Paper on building the UK financial sector’s operational resilience
- IRS Guidance on Section 162(m)
This entry was posted in Business law
and tagged 2018
. Bookmark the permalink