Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 581 - 600
of 1,422
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2018, 3:08 am
The defendants then allegedly used the $1.1 million in net proceeds as a down payment on a contract to purchase for $19 million a downtown Manhattan hotel property to be owned by a newly formed LLC — apparently with the intention that the original LLC’s members would have a direct or indirect ownership interest therein — and requiring a substantial investment to close the sale. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 9:18 am
I would hold that the parties raised no issue that the arbitrator did not completely decide. [read post]
8 Oct 2015, 9:18 am
I would hold that the parties raised no issue that the arbitrator did not completely decide. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 8:22 am
RBC Centura Banks, Inc.: The facts of this case are terrifically interesting. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 3:39 am
If ultimately acquitted, a side agreement provided that the plaintiff’s and defendant’s ownership interests would adjust to 75% and 25%, respectively. [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 6:25 am
Turning to the attorney fee award, FedEx argued that plaintiffs’ request for $7.4 million, plus a multiplier of 2.0 for a total of $14.8 million, was excessive and that plaintiffs’ were primarily motivated by their own financial interests. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 11:14 am
Thomas deeded his interest in the house. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 2:34 pm
However, the Court changed direction when it noted that the plaintiffs here were complaining about board “inaction” and as a result, the Aronson test did not apply. [read post]
25 Aug 2020, 3:00 am
Plaintiffs Matthew Matson and Matson SDRE Group, LLC (“Matson”) contested the deed of trust purchased in a foreclosure auction after learning the lien was second in position with a lower fair market value than the auction price. [read post]
1 Dec 2020, 3:00 am
The suit between parties arose when Appellants purchased low-lying properties prone to standing water and groundwater percolation issues. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 9:57 am
Also interesting: the court said that the trademark plaintiff could sue the defendant in Arizona based on the defendant’s registration of a domain name with GoDaddy, citing the GoDaddy-registrant agreement’s venue selection clause. [read post]
16 May 2014, 1:12 am
The plaintiff’s amended complaint itself is absolutely fascinating, and I recommend it to anyone interested in an intricate tale that interweaves history and the rarified world of fine art. [read post]
27 Nov 2007, 8:03 pm
The concept is directed at those plaintiffs and trial lawyers who might otherwise reject a structured settlement because of a perceived lack of liquidity. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 6:00 am
Among its contentions on appeal, CMH argued that the FORA/City deeds did not actually bind successors-in-interest (as the covenant appears to be directed only at those directly contracting with FORA) and that City did not put the prevailing wage requirement into its contract with CMH. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 6:00 am
Rather, "reliance upon alleged false representations may be inferred from the circumstances attending the transaction which oftentimes afford much stronger and more satisfactory evidence of the inducement which prompted the party defrauded to enter into the contract than his direct testimony to the same effect. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 10:50 am
The court set disgorgement at a bit over $1.6 million plus prejudgment interest. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 12:47 pm
Rather, it was a third-party claim between a Taiwanese tire manufacturer plaintiff and a Japanese valve manufacturer defendant for indemnity “on the basis of a sale made in [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 11:48 am
Apr. 15, 2016)This case revisits an issue with which courts have struggled: when consumer plaintiffs plead that a product advertised as clinically proven isn’t, is that a mere “lack of substantiation” claim unavailable to private parties? [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 10:18 am
Because the parties disagree as to this question of medical fact, both summary judgment motions fail, and the question of direct infringement of method claims 37 and 38 will go to the jury.He denied the cross motions for summary judgment. [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 3:41 pm
But with increasing frequency, a plaintiff is little more than a façade for meticulously hidden investors who have purchased an interest in the asserted claims, all in pursuit of handsome profits. [read post]
