Corporate Compliance and Governance Blog

CSC's Garnishment Processing Service can significantly reduce your costs and get you out of the garnishment business.

Problem: Fortune 500 companies and others are seeing substantial increases in garnishment volumes in today’s economic climate. Increased paper traffic, rapid turn-around of responses for compliance, and AP obligations are all costly to staff, especially in a time of budget cuts.

Solution: CSC's Garnishment Processing Service can significantly reduce your costs and get you out of the garnishment business. CSC will:

* Receive, index and scan all garnishment documents
* Verify employment
* Prepare and send all responses
* Integrate with your company's AP system to automate check processing
* Store and manage documents for records management compliance and disaster recovery
* Provide reports to confirm compliance and identify trends

CSC's affordable Garnishment Processing Service reduces your costs, ensures compliance and lets you focus your resources on growing your business.

Contact Reyner Miekle via email or 800-927-9801 x3273 to learn how the CSC Garnishment Processing Service can help you reduce costs and risks.

The starting point for conducting a UCC search is to identify the correct name of the debtor. A financing statement is sufficient under Article 9 only if it provides the correct name of the debtor or if a search of the correct name would disclose the record. Under these rules it would appear that a search under only the correct name of the debtor would be sufficient to disclose all interests in the debtor’s collateral.

Unfortunately for the unwary searcher, a search under just the correct name of the debtor may not reveal all the potentially effective records. There are circumstances where a financing statement or other lien may be indexed in the UCC records under something other than the debtor’s correct name. These records could be fully effective to perfect the security interest in spite of debtor name variations.

Continue reading " Be Sure to Search All Relevant UCC Debtor Names! " »

In re TD Banknorth Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2557-VCL, Lamb, V.C. (Del. Ch. July 29, 2008).

The Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for certification as class representatives in a class action brought by former investors who claim that the defendants improperly initiated a transaction in violation of a stockholders agreement. The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs satisfied the adequacy requirement of Court of Chancery Rule 23(a)(4) because both plaintiffs had sufficient knowledge of, and participation in the litigation, and there was no evidence of improper conduct of counsel.

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Bayer CropScience L.P., C.A. No. 3741-VCL, Lamb, V. C. (Del. Ch. July 29, 2008).
The Court denied preliminary injunctive relief to the plaintiff, DuPont, in a breach of contract case dealing with a supply and license agreement between the two chemical companies. The Court reasoned that DuPont, which sought specific performance of a supply agreement, could not establish by “clear and convincing evidence” its entitlement to the relief sought and that the balance of hardships did not warrant preliminary injunctive relief.

Continue reading " Recent Corporate and Alternative Entity Decisions from the Delaware Courts " »