Search for: "Davis v. Target Corporation"
Results 1 - 20
of 150
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm
This post comes to us from Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:36 am
Davis and William R. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
Davis. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 5:16 pm
Judges who have never held elected office — and it hardly seems a mere coincidence that the campaign finance revolution in the Court began with Davis v. [read post]
13 Sep 2008, 7:10 pm
In late July, Delaware Vice Chancellor Noble issued a decision in Ryan v. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 4:05 pm
Every lawyer bio should have a v-card, phone number, email address and land address. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 3:00 am
Jalbert v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 2:40 pm
Lin, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law—Community Levers for Benefit Sharing James N. [read post]
2 Aug 2023, 2:51 pm
Louis and Davis v. [read post]
4 Jun 2023, 9:01 pm
This post comes to us from Davis, Polk & Wardwell LLP. [read post]
15 Nov 2021, 8:02 am
” “In Mauck v. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 5:01 am
ACLU; Ashcroft v. [read post]
3 Jan 2017, 8:39 am
* Smith v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 6:19 am
Sama, and Jennifer Wieboldt, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, on Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Tags: Cross-border transactions, Morrison v. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 6:47 am
Plumbers Local No. 137 Pension Fund v. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 6:16 am
Bank, University of California, Los Angeles, on Thursday, August 18, 2016 Tags: Boards of Directors, Compensation guidelines, Compensation ratios, Corporate culture, Executive Compensation,Labor markets, Management, Taxation Political Contributions and Lobbying Proposals Posted by Yafit Cohn, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, on Thursday, August 18, 2016 Tags: Accountability, Citizens United v. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
July 3, 2023, settled) SEC v. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Davies, Sarah E. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Davies, Sarah E. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:22 pm
For example, in 2016, a Minnesota federal judge granted motions to dismiss filed by Target Corporation’s executives, directors and the board of director’s special litigation committee after the special litigation committee issued a 91-page report concluding that Target should not pursue derivative claims against officers and directors based on the company’s 2013 cyber breach incident,[7] which affected approximately 110 million… [read post]
