Search for: "308 Holding Company LLC" Results 21 - 40 of 51
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Jul 2020, 6:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
On December 21, 2012, the buyer’s title insurance company raised certain objections [*2]to the sellers’ title to the subject property. [read post]
14 Jan 2014, 4:53 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Texaco, Inc., 437 F.2d 308 (3d Cir. 1971) (appearance of authority could be created by putative principal’s insignia and slogan prominently displayed on putative agent’s service station, and putative principal’s nationwide advertising campaign); Mayflower Transit, LLC v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 6:15 am
Matrixx then sent a letter requesting that the researchers report their research without use of Matrixx's company name or product trademarks. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 6:15 am
 Matrixx then sent a letter requesting that the researchers report their research without use of Matrixx’s company name or product trademarks. [read post]
21 Apr 2017, 4:59 am by John Elwood
Michigan Department of Treasury, 16-698, and DIRECTV Group Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 4:12 am by Chris Wesner
., Case No. 19‐30822 Judge Humphrey Chapter 7 Decision Granting Petitioning Creditors’ Motion for Contempt (Doc. 145) and Determining Additional Interest as a Remedy to Enforce Compliance This matter is before the court on the Motion to Hold Tagnetics in Indirect Contempt (doc. 145) (the “Motion”), filed by petitioning creditors Jonathan Hager, Ronald E. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 10:22 am by Gene Quinn
Their efforts made others stand up and take notice in a not so positive light, castigating them as evil and holding up innovation. [read post]
9 May 2017, 7:19 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the April 13, April 21 and April 28 conferences)   DIRECTV Group Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
5 Aug 2017, 11:50 am by Wolfgang Demino
Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, 837 F.3d 918, 932 (8th Cir. 2016) (finding viable FDCPA claims based on amounts "misstated by $1.29, $1.84, and $0.65" because "there [i]s no de minimis exception to FDCPA liability based upon low dollar amounts").[4]FULL TEXT OF DISSENTING OPINION  STEPHEN A. [read post]
9 Dec 2015, 6:50 am
  Therefore, according to the article, “federal law cannot prohibit generic drug companies from providing truthful warnings about the risks of the products they sell. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 12:25 pm by Wolfgang Demino
And in 2009 and 2010 her creditors acknowledged, in what is called a charge-off date, that they likely would not be successful at collecting the debt, and would consider it a loss for the company. [read post]