Search for: "U.S. v. Matte*"
Results 3881 - 3900
of 32,195
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2022, 9:01 pm
Current proposals include: (i) imposing a mandatory “cooling-off” period of 120 days for officers and directors, and 30 days generally, between when a plan is adopted or modified and when trading can commence; (ii) requiring directors and officers to personally certify to the company that they are not in possession of material nonpublic information at the time of adoption or modification of a plan; (iii) providing that the affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1) does not apply… [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 1:07 pm
Karl v. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 12:44 pm
Kalanick, U.S. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 11:54 am
Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014). [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 8:08 am
And it’s in the 2017 version of that resource from the even earlier version of that session (available here, with standard caveats that often updates, edits and removals are done for a reason) includes a specific story of law firm audit letters playing a role in a DOJ matter: SEC v. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 5:07 am
Aleksandr V. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 9:08 pm
The Court’s decision in the latest of these cases, West Virginia v. [read post]
10 Apr 2022, 8:03 am
Co. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2022, 2:35 pm
On April 5, in Heights Apartments v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 2:51 pm
Ferguson and Brown v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 8:03 am
And of course in Bluman v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 7:30 am
[1] FTC v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 6:30 am
And of course in Bluman v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 7:26 pm
Ct. 1648, 593 U.S., 210 L. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 6:22 pm
A: One of the first cases was FTC v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 4:20 pm
National League, 259 U.S. 200 (1922). [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 12:28 pm
The case, Northeast Patients Group et al. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 11:35 am
According to the U.S. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 10:00 am
There will be a lot riding on this decision, and I’m certain artists and other creatives throughout the U.S. will be watching closely. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 9:00 am
There was therefore no error in the case. (1) Defendant’s challenge to the second step of the Batson analysis was preserved; (2) The State’s proffered explanations for its use of peremptory challenges were racially neutral; (3) The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant failed to show purposeful discrimination under the totality of circumstances State v. [read post]
