Search for: "Target Corporation of Minnesota"
Results 1 - 20
of 356
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2010, 10:02 am
The Target Corporation of Minneapolis, Minnesota cooperated with the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission in determining that the belts did in fact contain excessive levels of lead. [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 10:01 am
District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class of financial services institutions claiming damages from Target Corporation’s 2013 data breach. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 9:15 pm
The Target Corporation’s settlement of class action litigation over a major consumer data security breach is not as groundbreaking as all that, and in particular falls far short of the enormous liability payouts that were being talked of for a while [Paul Karlsgodt; Minnesota Public Radio] It does however feature attorney’s fee payouts “not to exceed $6.75 million, which is on the high end of the historical range” [Paul Bond, Lisa Kim, and Christine… [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 4:53 am
MSNBC will not air an ad by MoveOn urging a boycott of Target because of its political contribution to a candidate for governor in Minnesota who opposes same sex marriage. [read post]
15 Jul 2016, 8:00 am
Magnuson of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss a shareholder class action that had been initiated following a 2013 holiday season data breach involving customers of Target Corporation (“Target,” or “the Company”). [read post]
23 Sep 2015, 10:40 am
District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class of financial services institutions claiming damages from Target Corporation’s 2013 data breach. [read post]
16 Aug 2016, 6:07 pm
Target home offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [read post]
16 Aug 2016, 6:07 pm
Target home offices are located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 6:28 am
In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (“ In re Target”), 2014 WL 6775314 (U.S.District Court for the District of Minnesota 2014). [read post]
11 Aug 2011, 11:11 am
From Burger King, to Toyota, to Target and more, profitable corporations with sales in every country experience the need to recall a faulty product. [read post]
30 Sep 2020, 10:37 am
Five states currently collect corporate AMTs: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Five states currently collect corporate AMTs: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire. [read post]
29 Dec 2014, 8:06 am
On December 18th, the District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled on defendant's motion to dismiss in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. [read post]
9 Jul 2016, 5:35 pm
The post Target Corporation Cybersecurity-Related Derivative Litigation Dismissed appeared first on The D&O Diary. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 5:18 am
Now, the Minneapolis-based Target Corporation, one of the nation’s largest employers, has announced that it will remove questions about criminal history from its job applications throughout the country. [read post]
11 Aug 2021, 6:55 am
Six states currently collect corporate AMTs: California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New York. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 11:02 am
Meanwhile, since California, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire have corporate AMTs that do not conform to the federal provision, those taxes will continue to be collected. [read post]
19 Aug 2020, 3:19 pm
The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), along with the U.S. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm
In a decision issued late last Friday, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected an effort by class action Plaintiffs to access materials created in the course of Target’s investigation of its 2013 payment card breach that Target claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 2:03 pm
In a decision issued late last Friday, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected an effort by class action Plaintiffs to access materials created in the course of Target’s investigation of its 2013 payment card breach that Target claimed were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. [read post]
