Search for: "B&B PARTNERS" Results 141 - 160 of 10,753
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jan 2021, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
stop hand by b farias from the Noun Project One of the proudest days in an attorney’s legal career is making partner. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 7:00 am by Bob Ambrogi
EvenUp, a company that uses AI to turn medical documents and case files into demand packages for personal injury lawyers, has raised $50.5 million in a Series B funding round led by Bessemer Venture Partners, with participation from Bain Capital Ventures, Behance founder Scott Belsky, and Clio Ventures, the investment arm of legal technology company Clio. [read post]
20 Aug 2022, 10:47 pm by Bill Marler
We are currently finalizing details with our partners so that we can process your claim as quickly as possible. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 10:17 am by Brian Clark
  If the partnership’s § 734(b) adjustment is a positive $2,500, then Partner-1 and Partner-2 still have an inside-outside basis disparity of $1,000. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statement—cannot give rise to liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 thereunder, even where there is an affirmative regulatory duty to disclose the omitted information. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statement—cannot give rise to liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 thereunder, even where there is an affirmative regulatory duty to disclose the omitted information. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statement—cannot give rise to liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 thereunder, even where there is an affirmative regulatory duty to disclose the omitted information. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statement—cannot give rise to liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 thereunder, even where there is an affirmative regulatory duty to disclose the omitted information. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statement—cannot give rise to liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 thereunder, even where there is an affirmative regulatory duty to disclose the omitted information. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Moab Partners unanimously held that a “pure omission”—the failure to disclose information in the absence of an inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading statement—cannot give rise to liability under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or Rule 10b-5 thereunder, even where there is an affirmative regulatory duty to disclose the omitted information. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 2:30 am by Press Releases
Swain, Helen Su, Nadya Sand, Chris Lightner, Christopher B. [read post]
28 Jan 2013, 4:47 am by Stephen Page
Western Australia's Family Court has recently allowed an adoption by a gay co-father of twins conceived through surrogacy in India.In the unreported case, called B and Another, Justice Crisford could only allow the adoption to proceed if she found that Mr B's partner, Mr M was not only the genetic father of the child, but the legal father of the child. [read post]
23 Feb 2008, 1:50 pm
                  Partners are _____. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 1:43 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Both persons file jointly an Affidavit of Domestic Partnership; andNeither person has been a partner in a domestic partnership that was terminated less than 180 days prior to filing of the current Affidavit of Domestic Partnership, except that this prohibition shall not apply if one of the partners died; and, in all cases in which a person registered a prior domestic partnership, the domestic partnership shall have been terminated in accordance with the provisions shown below under… [read post]