Search for: "2012-B Property Holdings LLC" Results 221 - 240 of 293
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jan 2014, 12:00 pm by Edward Piper
 “[T]he Ninth Circuit made clear,” it held, “that it is the actions of the employer who maintains the computer system that determine whether or not a person is acting with authorization,” a rule established in LVRC Holdings LLC v. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
Or is the corporation merely property, a complex commodity? [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 2:31 pm by Chukwuma Okoli
Facts Damac Star Properties LLC v Profitel Limited (“Damac”)[4] was the fall out of an investment introduced to the 1st plaintiff/respondent by the 2nd respondent allegedly on behalf of the defendant/appellant wherein the 1st plaintiff/respondent paid a deposit of 350,000.00 US Dollars for 9 apartments in Dubai and being 20% of the total cost of the apartments. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 5:57 am by Eugene Volokh
” I’m delighted to report that leading Internet lawyer Venkat Balasubramani (Focal Law LLC) and I have filed a lawsuit challenging this statute. [read post]
18 Oct 2021, 7:22 am by Eugene Volokh
University Club reaffirmed the narrowness of the D.C. statute, holding that it doesn't apply to a club's ejecting a member because of his general political beliefs (as opposed to party affiliation).[8] Arboleda v. [read post]
14 Nov 2011, 3:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
At the last stage of the transaction, Williams Oldco contributed its entire 75% ownership interest in Williams Holdco to WREM Holdco LLC ("Taxco"), a new Delaware company formed by Williams Oldco as the sole Class A voting member of Taxco and two of Williams Oldco's principals as the Class B non-voting members. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 9:34 am by Abbott & Kindermann
(2) Is the adoption of an ordinance enacting a voter-sponsored initiative under Elections Code section 9214, subdivision (a), a “ministerial project” exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080, subdivision (b)(1)? [read post]
14 Mar 2016, 2:56 am by Kevin LaCroix
  A paralegal working at the insured law firm, Cumberland & Erly, LLC (“C&E”), embezzled $157,268.75 through forging checks. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 8:03 am by Joy Waltemath
Further, the final rule does not affect the applicability of paragraph (a) (scope and application) or paragraph (b) (definitions). [read post]