Search for: "Other Defendants-Class III-a, Class III-b, Class III-c" Results 101 - 120 of 473
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Apr 2008, 9:05 pm
” Specifically, the complaint alleges that (a) that defendants failed to record losses on the deterioration in mortgage assets and collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) on Credit Suisse’s books caused by the high amount of non-collectible mortgages included in the portfolio; (b) that Credit Suisse’s internal controls were inadequate to ensure that losses on residential mortgage-related assets were accounted for properly; and… [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 7:08 pm by Law Office of Ava George Stewart, P.C.
"From HB6463:730 ILCS 5/5-6-1(c) The court may, upon a plea of guilty or a stipulation by the defendant of the facts supporting the charge or a finding of guilt, defer further proceedings and the imposition of a sentence, and enter an order for supervision of the defendant, if the defendant is not charged with: (i) a Class A misdemeanor, as defined by the following provisions of the Criminal Code of 1961: Sections 11-9.1; 12-3.2; 12-15; 26-5; … [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
An organization has “associational” standing to bring claims on behalf of its members if “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 4:53 am by Joy Waltemath
” Section 216(b) and Section 626(c) have similar language and context, the court observed, therefore, Section 216(b)’s authorization of class actions similarly does not create a Section 626(f)(1) “right. [read post]
16 Feb 2013, 8:58 am
PROF'L CONDUCT R. 5.6(b).There are three main public policy rationales for Rule 5.6(b): (i) to ensure the public will have broad access to legal representation; (ii) to prevent awards to plaintiffs that are based on the value of keeping plaintiffs' counsel out of future litigation, rather than the merits of plaintiffs case; and (iii) to limit conflicts of interest. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 10:18 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Defendants typically argue that the class theories are no longer viable under Dukes, and Plaintiffs often defend their class claims as being consistent with the SCOTUS ruling. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 5:30 pm
Most recently, he has defended a number of complex class and representative actions alleging various business torts, unfair competition, false advertising, and violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. [read post]
Retentions $0  each Insured Person under Insuring Agreement I (A) or (D) $2,500,000  each Claim, other than Securities Claim, under INSURING AGREEMENT I (B) OR (E) $2,500,000  each Securities Claim under INSURING AGREEMENT I (B) OR (C) $0  each Investigation Demand under INSURING AGREEMENT I (F) Subsection (a) involves a scenario where the policyholder increases the risk of loss through a merger or acquisition. [read post]
14 Sep 2015, 4:32 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  Basic involved a class of sellers who sold in the face of defendants’ allegedly false denials regarding a contemplated merger. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 9:39 am by Jamie Markham
More specifically, Tier II offenses are those other than Tier III offenses (described below) that are punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and fall into one of the following three categories (A, B, or C): A. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 2:26 am
As a result, no infringement under Article 9(2)(c) was found either.Similarly, the court excluded passing off, since no likelihood of confusion could be established under Article 9(2)(b). [read post]
22 May 2012, 5:14 pm by Sean Wajert
Intron/Temodar Consumer Class Action, Nos. 10-3046 and 10-3047 (3d Cir. [read post]