Xxxxxxx et al., Case No.IT-96- 23 and 23/1, Trial Judgment, 8 July 2003, para.416. 463 The wording of article 8(2)(b)(iv) could also potentially encompass other forms of attacks, such as cyber- attacks, if those attacks were capable of causing loss of life or injury to civilians or civilian objects. An example would be a cyber-attack designed to make a hydro dam malfunction and unleash damaging amounts of water on downstream civilians and civilian objects, also causing large-scale environmental damage. See generally Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx et. al., Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, Cambridge University Press 2013 (“Tallinn Manual”). 464 Xxxxxxxx (2009), p.337. 465 The motivation for laying mines on the site remains unclear. Criminal proceedings concerning the attacks on Peruca Dam were commenced in Croatia. Former JNA military commander Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxx was charged by Croatian authorities in connection with the mining of the Peruca Dam: Balkan Insight, “Montenegro Extradites Serbian Wartime General to Croatia”, 9 March 2016, xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/en/article/montenegro- extradited-serbian-wartime-general-to-croatia-03-08-2016. conducted during armed conflict that is frequently cited as the type of conduct that could constitute an “attack” in this sense is the American defoliation campaign during the Vietnam War – “Operation Ranch Hand”.466 During Operation Ranch Hand, the United States (“US”) Army sprayed many millions of gallons of herbicides, including the infamous Agent Orange, on Vietnam and Laos and cleared lands with large “Roman plows” in an effort to remove the forest cover being used effectively by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese army.467 Encompassing many individual strikes, this overarching campaign would also qualify as an “attack” for the purposes of article 8(2)(b)(iv).468 However, in civil proceedings under the Alien Tort Statute in the USA, the district court, as upheld on appeal, held no violation of international law had been shown concerning the US deployment of Agent Orange in Vietnam, because in the judge’s view the Agent Orange was only used to defend US forces.469 Another type of military attack that could result in excessive harm to the environment, is nuclear attacks. Generally large-scale in impact, nuclear attacks would almost inevitably result in serious environmental harm, and could potentially meet the circumstances in which the elements of article 8(2)(b)(iv) may be satisfied. However, there has been o...
Xxxxxxx et al., Case No. 208-0633-VCS (Del. Ch.) and (b) Norfolk County Retirement System x.
Xxxxxxx et al. [2] have shown that universal hashing allows for distilling a virtually-secure string whose length is roughly equal to the R´enyi entropy of the original string in Eve’s view. W
Xxxxxxx et al., Case No. 10-48395CA32, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx x. Xxxxxx Xxxx Holdings, Inc. et. al., Case No. 10-48424CA05 and Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx v. Xxxx X.
Xxxxxxx et al., Case No. 10-48402CA13, by purported shareholders of the Company, in connection with the tender offer and the merger. Each of the four complaints (collectively, the “Florida Actions”) names as defendants Burger King Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), each member of the Company’s board of directors (the “Individual Defendants”) and 3G Capital. The suits generally allege that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company’s shareholders in connection with the proposed sale of the Company and that 3G Capital and the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint filed on behalf of Xxxxx Xxxxx includes, among others, allegations that the Individual Defendants have failed to explore alternatives to the tender offer, that the consideration to be received by the holders of shares of Company common stock is unfair and inadequate; and that the proposed transaction employs a process that does not maximize shareholder value. The complaints filed on behalf of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxxx generally allege that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in self-dealing and obtaining for themselves personal benefits not shared equally by the other holders of shares. Those complaints include allegations that the consideration to be received by the holders of shares is unfair and inadequate, and that the proposed transaction employs a process which renders it unlikely that a higher bid will emerge for the Company. The complaint filed on behalf of Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by pursuing a transaction that fails to maximize shareholder value. The complaint includes, among others, allegations that the 40-day “go-shop” period is inadequate and the proposed transaction is intended to enable the Company’s private equity investors to “dump” their shares. Each of the complaints seeks injunctive relief and one complaint also seeks compensatory damages. The plaintiffs in the Florida Action have filed a joint agreed motion to consolidate these actions and to appoint plaintiff’s co-lead counsel. In addition, the Court has granted a motion to transfer the actions to the Complex Business Litigation Section. On September 20, 2010, an Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of two of the plaintiffs in the Florida Action. The Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the board of directors breached th...
Xxxxxxx et xx. Xxxxxxx.
Xxxxxxx et al. Xxxxxxx.
