Search for: "Banks v. Government Employees Insurance Company"
Results 1 - 20
of 389
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
While Custodia is subject to state prudential regulation, it is not FDIC-insured or subject to federal prudential regulation and does not have a holding company subject to Federal Reserve oversight. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
The sensitive personal data must also be linked or linkable to categories of current or recent former employees or contractors, or former senior officials, of the federal government, linked to categories of data that could be used to identify current or recent former employees or contractors, or former senior officials, of the federal government, or linked or linkable to certain sensitive locations, the geographical areas of which will be specified publicly, that… [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 8:01 am
Because data about government and military employees is of special concern, the proposed regulations would define “government-related data” to include two categories: (1) any precise geolocation data, regardless of volume, for any location within any area enumerated on a list of specific geofenced areas associated with military, other government, or other sensitive facilities or locations (the Government-Related Location Data List), or… [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
TheCTA exempts twenty-four kinds of entities from its reporting requirements,including banks, insurance companies, and entities with more than twentyemployees, five million dollars in gross revenue, and a physical office in the UnitedStates. [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 12:02 pm
It covers, among other types of extensions of credit by a bank, loans to an insider of the bank; a bank holding company of which the bank is a subsidiary; and any other subsidiary of that bank holding company. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 6:07 am
The Health Plan Excess Fee Case Filed Against Johnson and Johnson In Lewandowski v. [read post]
6 Feb 2024, 3:58 pm
According to the EEOC, shortly after Blackwell hired the employee, a Blackwell supervisor told the employee that company policy required all employees be clean-shaven. [read post]
30 Jan 2024, 9:50 am
Askanase v. [read post]
29 Jan 2024, 10:47 am
Truck Insurance Exchange v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm
[v] Client and Employee Poaching Claims A common claim noticed under private company D&O policies and one that often raises the question of Section 533’s applicability involves an insured’s liability for poaching clients or employees from a competitor. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 5:06 pm
Government Employees Ins. [read post]
8 Jan 2024, 2:02 am
The case concerned a medical service provider (MDK) who had processed the personal health data of an incapacitated employee and passed the information to a health insurance fund. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 11:00 am
See Walsh v. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 4:48 pm
The Departments establishment of the IDR fee for post-February 20, 2025 disputes and their previous December 15, 2023 announcement of the full reopening of the IDR portal for all dispute categories are part of the Departments’ ongoing response to the August 3, 2023 Federal District court ruling in Texas Medical Association, et al. v. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 9:01 pm
New Governance Obligations The Amended Regulation provides for several new or enhanced governance obligations, including: Senior Governing Body Oversight. [read post]
6 Dec 2023, 2:35 am
Since 2016, listed companies have been required to disclose details regarding the composition of their workforce, such as gender, age and employment type, under the environmental, social and governance reporting framework. [read post]
24 Oct 2023, 12:46 pm
In 2017, a former GRI employee brought a qui tam action against GRI, alleging that GRI violated the False Claims Act (FCA) by falsely certifying to the government that certain loans were eligible for the government program. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 8:59 am
Other WCAB Decisions Denied Judicial Review Tokio Marine America Insurance Company v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:57 am
Courts look at many factors, none of which alone is sufficient to pierce the corporate veil, including, but not limited to: (i) USC’s corporate formalities are disregarded by FC, (ii) USC is inadequately capitalized, (iii) USC shares offices, employees, bank accounts, and telephone numbers with FC, (iv) the FC uses USC’ property as its own; (v) the agreements and other arrangements (such as sharing administrative services, employees, or… [read post]
