Pa. Cons. Stat. » 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. (CORPORATIONS) / Chapter 19

15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1924

 Adoption of plan (Repealed).

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1924.  Adoption of plan (Repealed).

 

2014 Repeal.  Section 1924 was repealed October 22, 2014, P.L.2640, No.172, effective July 1, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker (2002) pa · cites it 10× “" 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a). "Upon the adoption of the plan of merger .”
Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker (2000) pasuperct · cites it 4× “15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a). In practical terms, if the Agreement applies, it allows appellant's family an opportunity to defeat the merger—if it does not, the merger may proceed despite their opposition.”
In Re Church of St. James the Less (2005) pa · cites it 2× “James needed the Diocese's consent for amendments to its Charter, it would presumably also need the Diocese's consent for fundamental corporate changes, such as a merger, which would effectively amend its Charter.”
Colorcon, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc · cites it 3× “Compare 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a) (mergers generally require shareholder vote), with 15 Pa.”
Warden v. McLelland (2002) ca3 “15 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1924(b)(1)(ii). Defendants note the Delaware Supreme Court has eliminated the “entire fairness” requirement applicable to long-form mergers.”
McCoy-McMahon, D. v. Godlove, J.C., II (2014) pasuperct “However, as noted by the trial court, “pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(b)(1)(ii) and 15 Pa.C.S.”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1924(a) — 3 cases
Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker (2002) pa “" 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a). "Upon the adoption of the plan of merger .”
Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker (2000) pasuperct “15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a). In practical terms, if the Agreement applies, it allows appellant's family an opportunity to defeat the merger—if it does not, the merger may proceed despite their opposition.”
Colorcon, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc “Compare 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a) (mergers generally require shareholder vote), with 15 Pa.”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1924(b) — 2 cases
Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker (2002) pa “" 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a). "Upon the adoption of the plan of merger .”
Colorcon, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc “Compare 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a) (mergers generally require shareholder vote), with 15 Pa.”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1924(b)(1)(ii) — 2 cases
Warden v. McLelland (2002) ca3 “15 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1924(b)(1)(ii). Defendants note the Delaware Supreme Court has eliminated the “entire fairness” requirement applicable to long-form mergers.”
McCoy-McMahon, D. v. Godlove, J.C., II (2014) pasuperct “However, as noted by the trial court, “pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(b)(1)(ii) and 15 Pa.C.S.”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1924(b)(l)(ii) — 1 case
Colorcon, Inc. v. United States (2013) uscfc “Compare 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a) (mergers generally require shareholder vote), with 15 Pa.”
— 15 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1924(c) — 1 case
Seven Springs Farm, Inc. v. Croker (2002) pa “" 15 Pa.C.S. § 1924(a). "Upon the adoption of the plan of merger .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.