Search for: "Stock v. Stock" Results 4841 - 4860 of 8,839
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2011, 10:44 am by Amy Joseph Pedersen
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion today in Thompson v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 6:32 pm by James McNairy
Scott Ladany began working for Vienna Beef in 1971 and obtained a 10% stock interest. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 3:39 pm by Morris Turek
  Frustrated, he locates a clerk and asks whether that 60 inch Samsung HD plasma television advertised for $999 is still in stock. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
You would thus be another $100,000 richer at the end of your second year, and under the Constitution, that income can be taxed.You might wonder why you would accept payment in shares of stock rather than salary, because grocery stores do not accept shares of stock to pay for food. [read post]
27 Oct 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
You would thus be another $100,000 richer at the end of your second year, and under the Constitution, that income can be taxed.You might wonder why you would accept payment in shares of stock rather than salary, because grocery stores do not accept shares of stock to pay for food. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 4:40 pm by Vanessa Schoenthaler
Titles V and VI of the JOBS Act made changes to both the threshold for registration under Exchange Act Section 12(g) and the thresholds for termination and suspension of registration under Exchange Act Sections 12(g) and 15(d), respectively. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 11:35 am by Kyle Hulten
The Olerichs sold all the stock of the company to the Aspelunds for $180,000. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 11:12 am by Eric
Jurisdictional ruling in a battle over a pseudonymous Internet blogger (AlfredLittle) who allegedly bashed the plaintiffs’ stock while short-selling the stock. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 4:41 pm
In Tennessee, appreciation in a company's stock, which the husband received by gift from his father, did not constitute marital property because the husband did not “substantially contribute” to the stock’s appreciation merely by working for the company. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:40 am by Lyle Denniston
He did not provide a reason, but it was likely because he owns stock in one of the companies.) [read post]