Search for: "Best Products, Inc. v. Best Products Co., Inc" Results 41 - 60 of 1,370
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Sep 2023, 4:00 am by Michael C. Dorf
Today is the Symposium in Honor of Professor Sherry Colb, hosted by Rutgers School of Law in Newark and co-sponsored by the Cornell Law Review. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 7:42 am by Eric Goldman
[As I will blog soon, California’s law requiring online businesses to advance the “best interests” of children also failed a constitutional challenge.] [read post]
The SEC may also conduct an “examination,” which involves a thorough review of a company’s disclosures, marketing materials, compliance plans, and internal controls to determine whether they are aligned with actual business practices.[9] The SEC similarly will “assess whether ESG products are appropriately labeled and whether recommendations of such products for retail investors are made in the investors’ best interests. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 12:06 pm by Legal Aggregate
The event was co-sponsored by the Stanford Center for Racial Justice and the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 5:49 pm by Keith Szeliga and Emily Theriault
Part 2 (our next article) will focus on DCAA’s audit guidance, audit procedures, and best practices for contractors dealing with DCAA audits. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 8:36 am by Ashwin Varma
Unfortunately, we don’t have great empirical studies to quantify the effects of moving a drug from a preferred tier (with little-to-no co-payment from patients) to a less-preferred tier (with a much more significant out-of-pocket obligation for the patient). [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 8:36 am by Ashwin Varma
Unfortunately, we don’t have great empirical studies to quantify the effects of moving a drug from a preferred tier (with little-to-no co-payment from patients) to a less-preferred tier (with a much more significant out-of-pocket obligation for the patient). [read post]
24 May 2023, 3:55 pm by Keith Szeliga and Katie Calogero
TINA specifically prohibits a contractor from claiming the Government’s price would not have decreased because the procurement was sole source or the contractor otherwise had superior bargaining power.[16] A contractor also cannot claim the Contracting Officer should have known the data were defective even though the contractor took no affirmative action to inform the Contracting Officer the data were defective.[17] A contractor cannot claim the price would not change because the parties… [read post]