Search for: "Steinberger v. Steinberger" Results 21 - 40 of 347
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jul 2023, 6:00 am by Jordan Steinberg
Leav & Steinberg Wins Dismissal of Manufacturer’s Claim Leav & Steinberg is currently representing two clients who suffered serious injury as a result of defective furniture produced by a foreign manufacturer. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
The next three mechanisms of (iv) better communication with stakeholders, (v) better planning for the future, and (vi) synthesis of procedures and values more overtly include sustainability and social justice choices. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 6:00 am by Lawrence Solum
The first issue includes: Exploring the (Dormant) Indian Commerce Clause by Maxwell Steinberg Original Meaning and Legislative Intent in McGirt v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
United States, Rule 10b-5, SEC enforcement, Securities fraud, United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
United States, Rule 10b-5, SEC enforcement, Securities fraud, United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Thank you Thomas [Kim] for that lovely introduction and I’m very pleased to be here at the Securities Regulation Institute giving the Alan B. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 4:40 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Origins of the Doctrine The original and leading case in New York on shareholder derivative plaintiff conflicts of interest is Steinberg v Steinberg (106 Misc 2d 720 [Sup Ct, NY County 1980]), in which the Court ruled that a derivative plaintiff must “demonstrate that she will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the shareholders and the corporation, and that she is free of adverse personal interest or animus. [read post]
11 Jul 2022, 3:47 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The three-year statute of limitations began to run on March 16, 2017, when a consent to change attorney form was executed by plaintiff, defendant Wallace Law Office, and defendant Leav & Steinberg, LLP (L&S), the incoming counsel (CPLR 214 [6]; Frost Line Refrig., Inc. v Gastwirth, Mirsky & Stein, LLP, 25 AD3d 532, 532-533 [2d Dept 2006]). [read post]