Revocation or cancellation of declared divided Can dividend once declared be revoked or cancelled?and tell me some cases if any.
In the UK: "Under section 277 of the Companies Act 1985, where a shareholder knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that a dividend was improperly paid, he is liable to repay it to the company." So if the company declared a dividend based on incorrect knowledge of their financial position, and they find out their true financial position that wouldn't allow a dividend payment, not only can (and must) they revoke or cancel the dividend payment, they can even force shareholders to repay the dividend. But that only applies if the declared dividend is more than the company is legally allowed to pay. The company might say "we have enough cash in the bank and no debt, we could pay a £10.00 dividend without breaking the law, but we only pay £0.50". If they discover their numbers are wrong, and they could only pay £8.00 legally, then they can't change their declared dividend from £0.50 to £0.40. The declared dividend is legally binding, except when the dividend amount is too high to be legally allowed.
In general: If the contract specifies some term (or "duration"), then it can only be modified in accordance with its own terms. When the employment contract expires any future employment term is subject to negotiation, and benefits could certainly be modified at that time. There are exceptions to this in labor law, but those vary by jurisdiction and won't be addressed here. Generally "vested" benefits like accrued vacation time or pension balances are treated like the property of the employee: They cannot be unilaterally reduced by the employer. One notable exception would be bankruptcy of the employer. I don't know where employee claims rank in Canadian bankruptcy law, but they are one of the debts that might not be paid in full.
There is no federal rule barring union members from participating in employer-sponsored 401K plans. And as described at this site 401K plans are often offered by a union directly to its members. However, it is possible that your employer's plan is not (or is no longer) open to union members. You could ask for a copy of the written rules under which they say you are not eligible to make further contributions. If you cease to be an employee, the plan must allow you to withdraw your account. It must also allow withdrawals once you reach age 59 1/2. It is usual for a 401K to allow you to withdraw at any time, withholding the proper IRS penalty, or accepting a statement that you will roll the money over to a qualified IRA account within 30 days. Many plans allow direct rollovers, in which the plan sends the account balance (or part of it) directly to such a qualified account. This is often the best method, because it avoids any error that might trigger a 10% penalty. You might want to ask if direct rollovers are supported by your plan. Get the answer in writing, especially if it is "no". However, a plan is not required to support direct rollovers. In fact I cannot find any rule that requires a plan to permit withdrawals for current employees prior to age 59 1/2, although I have never encountered a plan that forbids all such withdrawals. You could ask for a copy of the plan's written rules on withdrawals. Once you have a copy of the rules, you can consult a lawyer with knowledge of 401K law as to whether the plan can deny your request, and what steps you might be able to take. See also the article Challenges of Retirement Plans for Union Members: The collective bargaining agreement rules from Plansponsor for some relevant information.
Of course it doesn't work. You haven't discovered an end-around to property ownership I gave someone a car and want it back (they refuse) You no longer own this car. It is now titled in their name. Your interest in the car is now exactly zero whether or not they paid for it. I use a shell company to buy my own debt Okay. This has nothing to do with the car. You're now out of the cash it took you to set up this new entity. How are you doing this? I assume it means paying off your creditors with money you already have. You will also have to come up with some type of bogus documents that explain to the future court why this was even done. If you have the money, why do you have debt? My shell company sues me for conveying the car to conceal it from creditors Um, Ok. Now you're also out filing fees. Let's assume you know how to do this without paying an attorney to do it for you. I settle Makes sense, since you're suing yourself. The shell company now gets a court order to seize the car Seize the car how? This is a stretch. A judgement would be against you for the value of the car. You can't settle a lawsuit using assets you do not own. A court won't order something repossessed because of an unrelated squirrelly lawsuit. An exception would be a bankruptcy court that rules the item was sold or disposed of outside the court's orders. I would expect an astute court to hit you with contempt or sanctions for trying to use it to further your interests with some sort of end-around to property ownership. Expect more fees for this use of the court's time. The shell seizes the car No. Now I have the car back No.
united-states They thought of that. See IRS Pub 550, page 36: You are treated as having made a constructive sale of an appreciated financial position if you: • Enter into a short sale of the same or substantially identical property, So when you short-sell 1 BTC while still holding 1 BTC, it's taxed as if you simply sold your 1 BTC. This makes sense as the transactions are essentially identical in effect. I don't think it matters that the 1 BTC you held was used as the collateral for the 1 BTC you borrowed. In particular, although short sales are usually reported and taxed as of the date when they close, constructive sales are an exception and are taxed on the date of the constructive sale itself: You must recognize gain as if the position were disposed of at its fair market value on the date of the constructive sale. This gives you a new holding period for the position that begins on the date of the constructive sale. Then, when you close the transaction, you reduce your gain (or increase your loss) by the gain recognized on the constructive sale. So this doesn't help in deferring your taxes.
A financial institution (including a pawnbroker) cannot unilaterally change the terms of an agreement and obeying the law. This section in particular limits the interest rate to 2% per month. It would be illegal and a misdemeanor to raise the interest rate above the statutory limit. They also cannot change (shorten or lengthen) the maturity date of the loan, nor can they obligate you to wait until the maturity date to pay off the loan. They are in a bit of a bind if they lost their FFL. There is nothing illegal about transferring inventory to another store. They cannot compel you to redeem the item immediately, and you cannot compel them to violate the law and keep the item without the required license. In case what happened is that you went past the original maturity date because there is no viable public transportation to the new location and you've gone over the 30 day "grace" period (hence the extra charges), you might successfully argue in (small claims) court that the shop is responsible for your tardiness. The fact that the item is located 40 miles away is not per se an unconscionable burden on you, but if it is impossible or very expensive for you to get there because of the new location, they could have some responsibility to mitigate the situation (e.g. give you a ride to and from).
Why do you think they have the same shareholders? There’s no reason to believe that they are related corporations just because they share an address. I am shareholder and director of 4 corporations. 3 have the same shareholders in the same proportion. The other has different shareholders. All of them have their registered office at my accountant’s premises. It’s a small suburban practice so there are probably only a few hundred companies at that address. A large city practice would have thousands or tens of thousands. The property management company probably provides the same service.
Every lot on the subdivision is and always will be acquired “through the Developer” Unless the developer still owns it. Somebody is the heir or assignee of the Developer - that’s who you need to seek approval from. Even if the Developer was at some point a company that got liquidated, the right of being the Developer would transfer to the creditors of that company.