Search for: "Q B S Inc" Results 41 - 60 of 333
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2013, 9:15 am by Paul J. Feldman
We know about the likely penalty thanks to a Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture and Order (Order) – directed to TV Max, Inc. and its affiliates and its individual controlling principals – for violating Section 325(b) of the Communications Act and Section 76.64 of the Commission’s rules. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 12:57 pm by Schachtman
P v Q v R ~P­­­_____ ∴ Q v R ~Q­­­_____ ∴ R Hence, the term, “iterative disjunctive syllogism. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 8:57 am by Mark Astarita
”The SEC’s complaint charges Quiros, Stenger, Jay Peak, and a company owned by Quiros called Q Resorts Inc. as well as seven limited partnerships and their general partner companies with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 12:00 pm by EB-5
”The SEC’s complaint charges Quiros, Stenger, Jay Peak, and a company owned by Quiros called Q Resorts Inc. as well as seven limited partnerships and their general partner companies with violating the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 6:15 am
 Additionally, the Ninth Circuit reiterated the Supreme Court’s recent admonition in Tellabs, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 9:22 am by Eric
On the second Q, 512(f) only references damages as a remedy, but see the uncited but highly relevant Biosafe-One, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by David Hartley
In his motion to dismiss, Reynolds claimed he wrote the letters based off Sayid’s instructions and was not aware of Sayid’s scheme. [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 8:08 am by Kevin LaCroix
Leisner takes a look at the SEC’s new interpretive guidance for these types of exempt offerings and suggests how best practices might evolve for permissible general solicitation activities in future Rule 506(b) private offerings that will not violate the prohibitions of Rule 502(c). [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 9:29 am by Townsend Bourne
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., B-412744 (June 6, 2016) In Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., GAO denied a protest challenging the Navy’s evaluation under a task order procurement for cybersecurity support. [read post]