Search for: "Matrixx Initiatives, Inc." Results 41 - 60 of 149
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2011, 5:00 am by Stephanie Figueroa
They also discussed M&A developments in Delaware and the impact of Supreme Court cases such as Matrixx and Janus. [read post]
24 Sep 2011, 6:13 am by Christa Culver
LitwinDocket: 11-15Issue(s): Whether, in assessing the materiality of alleged omissions in a registration statement for an initial public offering, the court below erred in (i) considering only whether the alleged omission related to a significant business segment of the issuer's business, ignoring the alleged omission's relationship to the issuer's business as a whole, thereby overriding the requirement of Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 1:15 pm by Schachtman
  See “The Transposition Fallacy in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2011, 10:32 am by Schachtman
Marianne Bowler used the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 11:30 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Janus Capital continued to read the private right of action under Section 10b-5 quite narrowly, but Matrixx Initiatives v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 1:02 pm by Luke Green
Despite recent plaintiff victories in Matrixx Initiatives (discussed here) and Halliburton (discussed here), the judicial door seems to have swung back in the defendant's favor yet again. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 8:37 am by Kevin LaCroix
Earlier in the term, the Court had ruled favorably to plaintiffs in the Matrixx Initiatives case (refer here) and more recently in the Halliburton case (refer here). [read post]
31 May 2011, 8:33 am by James Hamilton
However, the panel here declined to follow that approach in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v. [read post]
13 Apr 2011, 2:36 pm by Mary Todd
Supreme Court adopted the position urged by the SEC’s amicus brief, affirming its traditional test of materiality in 10b-5 actions in Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., v. [read post]