Search for: "Galvin v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 54
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Yahoo News – Ken Dilanian and Frank Thorp V (NBC News) | Published: 9/27/2023 U.S. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
The State's immunity waiver applies equally to its municipal subdivisions, including cities (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195 [1978]). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
The State's immunity waiver applies equally to its municipal subdivisions, including cities (see Valdez v City of New York, 18 NY3d 69, 75 [2011]; Florence v Goldberg, 44 NY2d 189, 195 [1978]). [read post]
25 Mar 2022, 12:16 pm
(Opinion, United States Supreme Court)Massachusetts Superior Court Denies Secretary of State Galvin's Motion Against RobinhoodRobinhood Financial, LLC. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2021, 8:04 am by John Jascob
In an interview on CNBC on January 27, Galvin stated that current trading activity in GameStop shares represented a risk to "unsophisticated investors. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 3:30 pm by Renee Anderson
The volume’s editors (Arizona State University’s David H. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:52 am by ccollins
Hoffman is accused of fraudulently selling $3.3M of unregistered securities, along with childhood friend Thomas V. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 5:57 am by John Jascob
In May 2015, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin and Montana State Auditor Monica Lindeen filed separate petitions with the court, requesting judicial review of the legality of the Commission’s expansion of the exemptions available under Regulation A. [read post]
15 Jan 2016, 1:41 pm
Galvin, supra (quoting 18 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes § 3921(a)). [read post]
29 Oct 2015, 7:18 am by John Jascob
In their ongoing court challenge to the rule, regulators from Massachusetts and Montana argued that the SEC’s amendments to Regulation A violate the plain meaning of the Securities Act, overstep the Commission’s delegated authority, and strip investors of valuable state law protections (Lindeen v. [read post]