Search for: "Prudential Security, Inc. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 56
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
While Custodia is subject to state prudential regulation, it is not FDIC-insured or subject to federal prudential regulation and does not have a holding company subject to Federal Reserve oversight. [read post]
31 Dec 2023, 10:44 am by Mavrick Law Firm
  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Davis v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
”[19]The Interpretive Guidance states that the Council expects to “continue addressing most risks through its collaboration with primary financial regulators” and will base any nonbank financial company designation on “data-driven analysis that reflects the distinctive aspects of the company, its market, and its existing regulation. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 9:01 pm by Matthew Finkin
” The aggrieved employee must first inform the state of her proceeding and, if successful, can secure civil penalties scheduled according to the number and length of time of the violations: 75% of the penalties going to the state, 25% to be distributed to the employees affected by the violations. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 1:25 am by Shannon O'Hare
UNITED KINGDOM BREXIT UPDATE The UK and the EU reached a deal that, from 1 January 2021, governs key aspects of the trade relationship between the two parties. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 8:07 am by Preston Lim
This is well accepted in Canadian law, and indeed in the law of most countries, including that of the United States. [read post]
10 Jan 2020, 1:41 am
(Opinion, United States Supreme Court)FINRA Imposes $1 Million Fine On Prudential Investment Management Services For Retirement Plans' Supervisory Issues. [read post]
20 May 2019, 9:11 am by MOTP
Merely stating the seemingly obvious--that the unit of analysis is “the case”--does not solve all problems. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 1:00 pm by Zach ZhenHe Tan
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. applied the presumption of extraterritoriality to the ATS and concluded that courts had jurisdiction only over ATS claims that “touch and concern” the territory of the United States with “sufficient force. [read post]