Sentences with phrase «rules amendment proposal»

We are working on what will hopefully be a court rule amendment proposal to implement a lot of these changes, which would be going to word count, eliminating double spacing.

Not exact matches

China's ruling Communist Party proposed the amendment last month and there was never any doubt it would pass as parliament is packed with loyal party members who would not have opposed the proposal.

The SEC's 14a - 8 ruling and Bebchuk and Jackson's proposals would move securities regulation toward a confrontation with the First Amendment that has been brewing since 1933.

The election of directors (Proposal No. 1), the other proposals for the amendment of the Company's Articles (Proposal No. 2, and No. 3), the non-binding advisory resolution approving the Company's executive compensation (Proposal No. 6), the proposal to approve the Apple Inc. 2014 Employee Stock Plan (Proposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicablProposal No. 1), the other proposals for the amendment of the Company's Articles (Proposal No. 2, and No. 3), the non-binding advisory resolution approving the Company's executive compensation (Proposal No. 6), the proposal to approve the Apple Inc. 2014 Employee Stock Plan (Proposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicabproposals for the amendment of the Company's Articles (Proposal No. 2, and No. 3), the non-binding advisory resolution approving the Company's executive compensation (Proposal No. 6), the proposal to approve the Apple Inc. 2014 Employee Stock Plan (Proposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicablProposal No. 2, and No. 3), the non-binding advisory resolution approving the Company's executive compensation (Proposal No. 6), the proposal to approve the Apple Inc. 2014 Employee Stock Plan (Proposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicablProposal No. 6), the proposal to approve the Apple Inc. 2014 Employee Stock Plan (Proposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicablproposal to approve the Apple Inc. 2014 Employee Stock Plan (Proposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicablProposal No. 7), and the five shareholder proposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicabproposals (Proposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicabProposals No. 8, No. 9, No. 10, No. 11, and the Floor Proposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicablProposal) are considered non-routine matters under applicable rules.

Leila N. Sadat - Keeling, The 1983 Amendments to Shareholder Proposal Rule 14a - 8: A Retreat from Corporate Democracy?

An amendment to EU dairy rule proposals requiring that prices be fixed for no less than a year will weaken the EU dairy industry, claims the European Dairy Association (EDA).

House: Rules Suspended and Taken up for Immediate Consideration, Read second time, proposed amendment agreed to, the resolution was read the third time and passed in concurrence with proposal of amendment on 5/4/09.

The opinion also noted how the bar had «disregarded the findings of the Special Committee» but that «having considered the bar's proposals, the comments filed, the bar's response, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the court adopts the amendments to the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar as proposed by the bar.»

They rejected Google's submissions that amendments to the Act by Congress between 1994 - 1996 should be interpreted as an intent to include wireless communications in the exception, as well as their proposal that the Rule of Lenity be applied given the Act's potential criminal sanctions.

The changes — which were originally proposed in the November 2013 consultation Judicial review: proposals for further reform — include further cuts to legal aid and amendments to the rules on costs which will make it more difficult for charities and NGOs to intervene in judicial review proceedings.

In March this year, having considered the responses to the consultation, the government announced proposals to introduce tighter controls on «phoenix» pre-packs (by way of amendment to the Insolvency Rules 1986).

In 2008, proposals were made to regulate funding in class actions but the Class Actions Bill and associated draft High Court Amendment (Class Actions) Rules never made it into law and so it continues to be regulated through the «representative action» procedure.

The amendment would remove the proposals other than the Rule 23 suggestion, including the provision changing the construction statute of repose, which the bill proposes to cut from 10 to six years.