Search for: "In Matter of GS"
Results 401 - 410
of 410
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jan 2009, 8:22 am
The more interesting issue in this case is whether the Business Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a malpractice claim involving a patent because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over patent matters. [read post]
20 Mar 2008, 8:15 am
Please weigh in, on these and related matters -- e.g., stories about crazy and/or incompetent car service drivers -- in the comments. [read post]
12 Mar 2008, 4:25 pm
As a matter of fact, we do plan to visit the Magic Kingdom next week. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 7:17 pm
Though that may sound small by today's standards, bear in mind that salaries back then were smaller as well: my GS-11 position as a government attorney paid $27,800 (I turned down a law firm job at nearly three times that because I felt too burned out to work that hard); today a GS-11 makes $54,000. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 10:13 am
Salary is $46,041 (first step of GS-1420-09 pay grade) or higher, depending upon experience and other qualifications. [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 7:36 am
Case Name: In the Matter of the Guardianship of: FJO, AKA and LM, WRB and GB v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 3:36 pm
The WSJ article comments that although the names of the GS employees who were being evaluated were redacted from the front page of each document, whoevert did the redacting was sloppy and the names appear elsewhere in the documents, a circumstance that the WSJ article, a copy of which is also attached to the papers filed yesterday, says was embarrassing to S&C and GS.) [read post]
7 Mar 2007, 11:21 am
Quite simply, economic and geographic factors matter more. […] [For example, in deciding not to list in the US,] the key factors were liquidity and execution [and not legislative and regulatory burdens]. [read post]
26 Feb 2007, 3:36 pm
GS Capital Partners, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley intend to be equity investors at closing. [read post]
8 Mar 2006, 5:12 am
In this case, however, Mylan presented a consumer survey showing that P&Gs statements of equivalence confuse consumers into thinking that the two products have been approved for the same condition. [read post]
