Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Trevor v Whitworth (1887) 12 App Cas 409 is a UK company law case concerning share buybacks. It held they were unlawful. The case is often used in support for the Capital Maintenance Rule. The rule coming from the case itself has since been reformed by statute in several commonwealth countries.
Champerty and maintenance are doctrines in common law jurisdictions that aim to preclude frivolous litigation: Maintenance is the intermeddling of a disinterested party to encourage a lawsuit . [ 1 ] : 260 It is: "A taking in hand, a bearing up or upholding of quarrels or sides, to the disturbance of the common right."
The taxpayers classified this payment as an ordinary business loss, which would allow them to take a greater deduction for the loss than would be permitted for a capital loss. [1] The "Arrowsmith Doctrine" is a principle of United States Federal Income tax law that holds that financial restorations associated with prior income items take the ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
In re Exchange Banking Company or Flitcroft's case (1882) LR 21 Ch D 519 [1] is a UK company law case concerning the payment of dividends.It was decided when the law required that dividends should only be paid out of a company's profits, although the courts deferred to company directors to define their own rules for determining when that was so.
The term shareholder value, sometimes abbreviated to SV, [1] can be used to refer to: . The market capitalization of a company;; The concept that the primary goal for a company is to increase the wealth of its shareholders (owners) by paying dividends and/or causing the stock price to increase (i.e. the Friedman doctrine introduced in 1970);
From January 2008 to April 2011, if you bought shares in companies when William C. Steere, Jr. joined the board, and sold them when he left, you would have a -2.9 percent return on your investment, compared to a -7.3 percent return from the S&P 500.
Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court concerned with U.S. income tax law. [1] The case is cited as part of the basis for two legal doctrines: the business purpose doctrine and the doctrine of substance over form.