Search for: "E.F.2"
Results 21 - 34
of 34
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2009, 7:19 pm
E.F. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 4:03 pm
E.F. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 11:54 am
E.F. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
”[4] The court then applies these three prongs to distinct sets of offers and sales of the XRP tokens: (1) institutional sales; (2) sales of the token through exchanges where the transactions maintained counterparty anonymity; (3) use of the token to reward employees and vendors; and (4) sales of the tokens by senior leaders through the exchanges referenced in (2). [read post]
26 Jun 2016, 4:00 am
273 (1) et 273 (2) b) C.Cr.). [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 11:52 am
E.F. [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 10:01 pm
E.F. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 12:47 pm
E.F. [read post]
30 Sep 2019, 6:46 am
Halloween is a month away, but the candy is on the shelves at our local grocery stores and the courts are already delivering tricks and treats for those of us concerned with accessibility lawsuits. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
July 2, 1990); Victor v. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:35 am
Frickey, "From the Big Sleep to the Big Heat: The Revival of Theory in Statutory Interpretation,” Minnesota Law Review 77:241-267 (1992). 2. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 8:09 am
Frickey, From the Big Sleep to the Big Heat: The Revival of Theory in Statutory Interpretation,[2]Minnesota Law Review 77:241-267 (1992)· The Controversy Over Resort to Extrinsic Sources, Stephen Breyer, “On the Uses of Legislative History in Interpreting Statutes,” 65 S. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 8:08 am
***************************** On August 6, 2015, without fanfare, the SEC Division of Corporation Finance issued an interpretative letter to Citizen VC[1] and posted several updates to the Division’s Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (the “Companion C&DIs”[2]), all concerning the nuts and bolts of exempt private offerings, principally under Rule 506(b).[3] The first wave of professional commentary was uniformly positive, applauding the SEC… [read post]
24 Nov 2016, 4:00 am
Our goals for this article are three-fold: 1) To explore the ways in which popular films featuring female lawyers channel the “madwoman/monster” metaphor; 2) To trace “monstrous” female filmic characters in terms of neuroses, ambition, and motherhood; and 3) To argue for the possibility of reconfiguring the notion of “madwoman”as a valid and meaningful mode of female subjectivity that expands the field of possibilities for women lawyers. [read post]
