Search for: "STATE v SCOTT" Results 201 - 220 of 6,235
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Aug 2023, 6:30 am
A separate bill would eliminate the authority of the SEC to regulate shareholder proposals in their entirety, mirroring the objective of an ongoing lawsuit intervention by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in National Center for Public Policy Research v. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 1:01 am by rhapsodyinbooks
” It wasn’t until 1938 that the Court, in a footnote to a case, United States v. [read post]
5 Aug 2023, 7:00 am by jonathanturley
Former Obama administration acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal actually declared that the indictment “is up there with Dred Scott, it is up there with Brown v. [read post]
27 Jul 2023, 9:51 am by Kaufman Dolowich Voluck
The Complainant further stated […] The post Internal Investigations Don’t Have To Be The Equivalent Of Pulling Teeth, by Iram Valentin and Allison Scott 7-27-2023 appeared first on Kaufman Dolowich Voluck LLP. [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 4:00 am by jonathanturley
Tim Scott from South Carolina have faced continual racist tropes from the left, including a Maryland Delegate Gabriel Acevero stating that “Tim Scott isn’t naive, he’s cooning” to please white people. [read post]
15 Jul 2023, 11:52 pm by Frank Cranmer
Quick links Harriet Gray, Lexology: Balancing beliefs in the workplace: lessons from Higgs v. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 1:22 pm by Bona Law PC
Here the District Court–– citing the well-known AT&T acquisition of TimeWarner in 2018 (See United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 6:30 am
Stronski, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Tags: Board composition, directors, Mergers & acquisitions, SEC enforcement, Shareholder activism, universal proxy rule X Corp. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2023, 6:30 am
Stronski, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, on Tuesday, July 11, 2023 Tags: Board composition, directors, Mergers & acquisitions, SEC enforcement, Shareholder activism, universal proxy rule X Corp. v. [read post]