翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Black Woman & Child
・ Black Twitter
・ Black Tyrone
・ Black Uhuru
・ Black Umbrella
・ Black Unicorn Split
・ Black United Front
・ Black Unity
・ Black Unity and Freedom Party
・ Black Unstoppable
・ Black Up
・ Black Utopia
・ Black v Chrétien
・ Black v Law Society of Alberta
・ Black v The Queen (1993)
Black v. United States
・ Black Vanity
・ Black Vaudeville
・ Black veil
・ Black Veil Brides
・ Black Veil Brides (album)
・ Black Veil Brides discography
・ Black Velvet
・ Black Velvet (album)
・ Black Velvet (beer cocktail)
・ Black Velvet (magazine)
・ Black Velvet (revue)
・ Black Velvet (song)
・ Black Velvet (whisky)
・ Black Velveteen


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Black v. United States : ウィキペディア英語版
Black v. United States

''Black v. United States'', , is a white-collar criminal law case decided by the United States Supreme Court dealing with businessman Conrad Black's fraud trial. Along with two companion cases—''Skilling v. United States'' and ''Weyhrauch v. United States''—it dealt with the honest services provision, .
==Probe against Hollinger Inc.==
In May 2003, following shareholder complaints, a special committee appointed by Hollinger International directors began an investigation of internal financial management, including compensation and fees paid directly and indirectly to Black's associates at Ravelston, a holding company. In particular, New York investment firm Tweedy, Browne, which had an 18% stake in Hollinger International, demanded the company probe what it alleged to be excessive payments to Conrad Black and David Radler, and demanded "disgorgement" of the funds paid.〔Olive, David ("A Conrad Black Timeline" ) TheStar.com March 11, 2007〕
For example, in 2000, in an arrangement that came to be known as the "Lerner Exchange," Black acquired Chicago's Lerner Newspapers and sold it to Hollinger. The special committee’s report contained allegations of impropriety which led to a criminal investigation and, ultimately, the unraveling of the Hollinger media empire.
Black attempted to sell the controlling interest in Hollinger to British businessmen David and Frederick Barclay. The Hollinger board of directors successfully sued to halt Black's proposed transaction, though subsequent events demonstrated that the Barclays’ publicly disclosed offer of $18 per share was several times higher than the share price ultimately obtained for the sale of the Hollinger assets.〔("Auto Da Fé: Conrad Black, Corporate Governance, and the End of Economic Man" ), ''Books in Canada'', December 2006〕
In November 2003, Black resigned as chief executive of Hollinger. By January 2004 the board of directors of Hollinger obtained Black's resignation as chairman. Hollinger International filed a $200 million (USD) lawsuit against Black, David Radler and their associated companies.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Black v. United States」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.