Search for: "Wall v. Executive Office" Results 61 - 80 of 1,039
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Sep 2016, 11:00 am by Erwin Chemerinsky
Bush using funds from executive revenues to create an Office of Faith Based Programs to facilitate churches, synagogues, and mosques getting federal social service money. [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 10:33 am by John Jascob
The Northern District of Illinois noted that although those events went back at least eight years and the SEC only requires companies to go back five, Textura volunteered the rest of the executive's bio, rendering the overall disclosure misleading (Kelsey v. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 12:44 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  *************************   In a recent Delaware Chancery decision, Stacey Kotler v. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 7:36 am by John Jascob
At the end of the day, though, the ALJs decision, if not reviewed, binds the parties, and this is what makes them officers, Wall said. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 1:13 am by Kevin LaCroix
    These cases touch upon significant underlying themes being widely debated in American society today (e.g., Occupy Wall Street) as to who should be held responsible for the tremendous costs of bailing out the largest American banks in 2008, why more executives and directors of such institutions haven’t been held accountable and whether corporate executives and directors could have anticipated the acute global financial meltdown in 2008 and thereafter.[6]… [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 4:34 pm by Jane Chong
Kahanamoku, 327 U.S. 304, 322 (1946); Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 110, 121 (1866); Jecker v. [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 5:30 pm by INFORRM
The defendant, Darren Challis, was the chief executive officer of an Australian subsidiary of DHR from April 2010 to September 2012. [read post]
29 May 2014, 5:16 am by Amy Howe
  In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin covers the decision in Hall v. [read post]
24 Apr 2017, 8:33 am by Quinta Jurecic
And with respect to the President, in particular, it is what undergirds the Supreme Court’s decision in Clinton v. [read post]