Search for: "MATTER OF B T B" Results 441 - 460 of 20,081
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 May 2007, 10:13 am
With that out of the way, you will recall that I have been a skeptic that shareholder activism is (a) a good thing and (b) likely to matter. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 2:13 am by Sander van Rijnswou
Rule 137(5) EPC is therefore not contravened.This is in line with the reasoning of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal T 507/11 (see Reasons 1.1 to 1.3), T 1285/11 (see Reason 2), T 1981/12 (see Reasons 4.1 to 4.5), and T 998/14 (see Reasons 1.1 to 1.3) dealing with similar circumstances. [read post]
5 Nov 2011, 10:02 pm by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk)
No client cares: (a) what you're thinking, (b) what you did, or (c) what you know. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 10:02 pm by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk)
No client cares: (a) what you're thinking, (b) what you did, or (c) what you know. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 5:31 pm by Transplanted Lawyer
Ah, the missed opportunities felt by students with "B" but not "B+" grades! [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 7:16 am
Based on conflicts tied to the proposed AT&T / T-Mobile merger, several lawyers amicably exited Paul Hastings to set up their own shop. [read post]
26 Jun 2009, 2:17 pm
" The Supreme Court of Texas today held the non-specification of the actual employer as a party to the arbitration agreement didn't matter. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
”*Citing Matter of Ducey, et al., 65 St Dept Rep 65, an appeal decided in 1943, the Commissioner explained “[t]he date when a teacher commenced her [or his] service in the system is the date she [or he] started her probationary period, if that was the first date that she [or he] became connected with the system. [read post]
16 Jun 2008, 11:30 am
  For that matter, under the decision's fiduciary rationale, wouldn't Littman have the same right to recover the "true value" of his interest even if there had never been a subsequent third-party sale? [read post]
25 May 2009, 3:47 am
[I]n light of the Supreme Court's holding that "[i]t is axiomatic that court-prescribed rules of practice and procedure, as opposed to statutory time limits, do not create or withdraw federaljurisdiction," Kontrick, 540 U.S. at 370, we conclude that the non-statutory time limits in Appellate Rule 4(b) do not affect subject-matter jurisdiction. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 5:01 pm by oliver randl
Neither the former opponent nor the board sees any reason to challenge the technical sensibleness of the alternative approaches A) and B). [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 10:35 am
"Then we could focus all our attention on a more urgent matter struggling for oxygen right now, and that's the National Broadband Plan. [read post]