Search for: "Piper Hoffman"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2008, 12:07 pm
Doing IPOs in a Troubled Market In this podcast, Steve Pidgeon and David Lewis of DLA Piper discuss the recent IPO for Grand Canyon Education, including: - Why was Grand Canyon able to go public in this market? [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 12:53 pm
Susan Hoffman, co-chair of the D.C. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 5:09 am
The shades, called "Hoffman lenses" turn the world into a black-and-white tableaux, where billboards advertising Caribbean vacations are revealed to actually say "OBEY", and currency bears the words, "THIS IS YOUR GOD". [read post]
1 May 2020, 6:02 am
Hoffman, Ryan J. [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 6:22 am
., 121 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]; Goldfarb v Hoffman, 139 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2016]; Cascardo v Dratel, 171 AD3d 561, 562 [1st Dept 2019]; see CPLR 3211[a][1], [7]). [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 8:47 am
“We are proud to be a part of this campaign,” said Susan Hoffman, Crowell’s public service partner. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 4:35 pm
- Seattle lawyer Asher Bearman of DLA Piper on The Venture Alley Catching Up on Cloud Computing - Cincinnati attorney Craig Hoffman of Baker Hostetler on the firm's Data Privacy Monitor Final Webcasting Royalty Rates Published - A Comparison of How Much Various Services Pay - Washington, D.C. lawyer David Oxenford of Davis Wright Tremaine in the firm's Broadcast Law Blog The "Starving" Intern: Legal Ins & Outs of Unpaid Internships -… [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 6:44 am
” Briefly: At ACSblog, Piper Hoffman argues that the Supreme Court should deny certiorari in Dukes v. [read post]
26 Feb 2024, 3:54 am
., 121 AD3d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2014]; Goldfarb v Hoffman, 139 AD3d 474, 475 [1st Dept 2016]; Cascardo v Dratel, 171 AD3d 561, 562 [1st Dept 2019]; see CPLR 3211 [a] [1], [7]). [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 10:37 am
Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 768 So.2d 57, 61 (La. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 917 A.2d 767 (N.J. 2007), reversed another case (relied upon by the Appellate Division), finding it improper to apply New Jersey product liability (not consumer fraud) standards nationwide.While we correctly predicted the result, we were dead wrong about the rationale the supreme court chose to get there. [read post]
