Search for: "Price v. Cain" Results 1 - 20 of 40
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Oct 2023, 12:11 pm by Kevin LaCroix
The subsequently filed securities lawsuit complaint alleges that with each of the publications of negative news, the company’s share price declined. [read post]
9 Jun 2020, 12:26 pm by Kevin LaCroix
[v] Two examples of these strategic practices emerged following the Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in the Trulia case[vi] and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Cyan case. [read post]
26 Jan 2020, 3:39 am by INFORRM
On 3 March 2020 there will be a trial in the case of JQL v NTP, listed for 4 days On 9 March 2020 there will be a trial in the case of Reid v Price,  listed for 7 days. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 1:00 am by Kevin LaCroix
District Court for the Southern District of New York, defendants have introduced two new ways to rebut Basic Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2020, 2:52 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court’s March 2018 entry of its opinion in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2020, 2:52 pm by Kevin LaCroix
Supreme Court’s March 2018 entry of its opinion in Cyan, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 10:51 am
(Pix © Larry Catá Backer; Tauluseinä Tavelväggen, Wall of Printings (1977); Nörrköping Art Museum Turku Findland))Every year for almost 25 years, the Corporate Practice Commentator (with great thanks to Robert Thompson (Georgetown)) announces the results of its annual poll to select the ten best corporate and securities articles. [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 7:00 am by Ron Friedmann
Among other problems were dealing with US v UK spelling differences. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 10:33 am by John Elwood
Cain, 14-10008, a capital case out of Louisiana, is our third fourth relist. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 10:59 am by John Elwood
Cain, 13-1433, gets its third relist since arrival of the record. [read post]
8 Oct 2014, 9:00 am by Maureen Johnston
Cain 13-1433Issue: (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner's penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner's claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. [read post]