Search for: "D&B VENTURES, LLC" Results 221 - 240 of 309
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Nov 2019, 5:51 am
Hellmann (University of Oxford), on Monday, November 18, 2019 Tags: Capital formation, IPOs, Private equity, Private firms, Tech companies, Venture capital firms 2019 U.S. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 2:48 pm by Kevin LaCroix
John Reed Stark As I noted in a recent post, on June 8, 2016, the SEC, in what one commentator called “the most significant SEC cybersecurity-related action to date,” announced that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC had agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to settle charges that as a result of its alleged failure to adopt written policies and procedures reasonably designed to protect customer data, some customer information was hacked and offered for sale online. [read post]
3 Jun 2012, 12:09 pm by Charles Bieneman
District Court in as many days, the court in Tetris Holding, LLC v. [read post]
15 Aug 2011, 10:50 am by Jay Shepherd
The person (a) works for an offset-printing shop, (b) is a real-estate broker, (c) owns a massage parlor (the legit kind), or (d) is another lawyer looking to network, whatever that means. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 4:39 am by Russell Knight
Liberty Ventures, LLC, 857 NE 2d 320 – Ill: Appellate Court, 2nd Dist. 2006 (Citations Omitted) So, a lawyer can stop the deposition and talk to their client…or not. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
In August 2022, the Commission filed a case against Crown Bridge Partners, LLC (“Crown Bridge”) and its two members, who were brothers, alleging that they “engaged in the buying and selling large volumes of penny stocks for their own account. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 3:07 am
(d) Willfulness This is perhaps the most interesting point of Judge Koh's Order. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm
  In Ticheli, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court and upheld the enforceability of a non-compete clause in an employment agreement even though (a) the clause contained a very broad geographical and subject-matter scope, (b) the non-competition requirement was to last for two years, (c) the employee was terminated by the employer seeking to enforce the clause, and (d) the issue of enforceability was not raised in the trial court. [read post]