Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt or Hyatt III), [1] 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state.
However, Hyatt and Hyatt International remained two separate companies until June 2004, when substantially all of the hospitality assets owned by the Pritzker family business interests, including Hyatt Corporation and Hyatt International Corporation, were consolidated under a single entity called Global Hyatt Corp. On June 30, 2009, Global ...
Vi Senior Living, formerly known as Classic Residence by Hyatt, was founded in 1987 by Penny Pritzker. [3] [4] The Pritzker family background in founding the Hyatt hotel chain and Marmon Group inspired Penny Pritzker's vision to bring high-end hospitality to senior living communities across the United States.
In 2010, a majority stake of Joie de Vivre was purchased by Geolo Capital, the private equity firm founded by Hyatt Hotels heir John Pritzker.A $150 million fund to acquire additional hotels was established as part of the deal, with plans to acquire $300 million to $500 million in hotels over a three-to-five-year period. [3]
This page was last edited on 11 May 2016, at 05:43 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt I ), 538 U.S. 488 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Nevada state courts to give full faith and credit to California statutes that immunize its tax agencies from suit.
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt II), 578 U.S. 171 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Nevada rule that does not extend the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is effectively a "policy of hostility", which is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause.