Search for: "DOES 1-100, exclusive"
Results 321 - 340
of 1,950
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Aug 2016, 2:59 pm
But employers cannot rely exclusively on this explanation. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 7:18 am
Section 3(c)(1) of the act excepts from the definition of investment company “any issuer whose outstanding securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned by not more than 100 person and which is not making and does not presently propose to make a public offering of it securities. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 7:18 am
Section 3(c)(1) of the act excepts from the definition of investment company “any issuer whose outstanding securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned by not more than 100 person and which is not making and does not presently propose to make a public offering of it securities. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 10:08 am
If such an adviser does not have $150 million of assets under management and provides advice exclusively to those private funds that rely on either Section 3(c)(1) or Section 3(c)(7), it would not have to register with the SEC. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 7:18 am
Section 3(c)(1) of the act excepts from the definition of investment company “any issuer whose outstanding securities (other than short-term paper) are beneficially owned by not more than 100 person and which is not making and does not presently propose to make a public offering of it securities. [read post]
15 May 2008, 12:18 pm
Senate Bill 276 does two things. [read post]
6 Oct 2009, 8:06 am
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, 100 NY2d 377 (2003). [read post]
30 Oct 2017, 5:31 am
Allowability of the objection2.1 Legal basis of the objection2.1.1 The appellant has not argued that there was any reason for exclusion under Article 24(1) EPC, nor does the present board see any basis for the application of Article 24(1) EPC either. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 9:34 pm
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 8:44 am
SB 6 was the companion bill to AB 2011, but it does not create a ministerial approval process. [read post]
1 Apr 2020, 1:31 pm
The elimination of the RMD, however, does not apply to defined benefit plans, including cash balance plans. [read post]
11 May 2021, 8:54 am
However, the RPBA seems to only impose constraints on late-file submissions by parties, as does Art. 114(2) EPC, and not by third parties. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 3:00 pm
City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017). [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 6:41 am
Further, if the case settles prior to such an adjudication, the exclusion does not apply, and the insurer cannot escape its obligation to indemnify the insured(s) for settlement. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 11:47 am
I believe a change to Rule 1.5: 1. [read post]
9 Apr 2018, 1:45 pm
Of course, a patent owner pays a price for this 20 year window of exclusivity. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 3:34 pm
The 3(c)(1) exemption exempts from Investment Company Act registration any fund with 100 or fewer investors. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 3:05 pm
In interviews, 11/11 (100%) reported eating fresh blackberries. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 1:20 am
Even where the rules are in place, you won't find 100% compliance across an entire industry. [read post]
24 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
European patent No. 1 773 302, filed on 16 February 2005 and claiming the priority date of 23 July 2004 from US application 10/898061 (D1), was opposed on the ground that its subject-matter lacked novelty and inventive step (Article 100(a) EPC) and was insufficiently disclosed (Article 100(b) EPC).The following documents were among those cited during the first-instance proceedings:D1: US2005/0152971 (application No. 10/898061), filed on 23 July 2004, priority application… [read post]
