Search for: "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, interested parties"
Results 641 - 660
of 1,438
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jun 2019, 2:53 pm
For reasons similar to those for M&A offerings, tracing would be relatively easy in the case of direct offerings, especially closer to the date of the offering (before the shares in question were re-sold to other parties). [read post]
18 May 2015, 4:40 pm
An interesting May 6, 2015 decision (here) by the Supreme Court of Victoria (Melbourne) addressed the interesting question of what is the relevant point in time for determining the ownership percentage – at the time the claim is made or at the time the wrongful acts allegedly took place? [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 6:15 am
“The court shall ascertain and declare the rights, titles and interest of all the parties in such [a partition] action, the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, and shall enter judgment according to the rights of the parties…If the court finds that a division can be made, then the court shall enter further judgment fairly and impartially dividing the premises among the parties with or without owelty. [read post]
23 Jun 2019, 3:01 pm
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 4:23 pm
(2) In writing or by electronic mail, the names and addresses of all of the third parties that received personal information from the business for the third parties' direct marketing purposes during the preceding calendar year and, if the nature of the third parties' business cannot reasonably be determined from the third parties' name, examples of the products or services marketed, if known to the business, sufficient to give… [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 1:25 pm
“It is true that decisions not to purchase insurance are in some sense economic ones,” Judge Graham continues. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 4:25 am
In her decision, Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Andrea Masley rejected Seibel’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ direct and derivative claims for failing adequately to allege damages. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 4:00 am
Fancy, 268 AD2d 229, 229 (1st Dept. 2000) (affirming the trial court's decision to award direct payment to the plaintiff, instead of the defunct corporation, to "prevent[] unnecessary circuity and hardship"). [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:43 am
Petition denied with directions. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 3:00 am
” The district court should consider “real evidence (direct or circumstantial) and the reality of what is at stake in the litigation,” and provide each party a “fair opportunity to submit proof. [read post]
4 Apr 2023, 10:30 am
Make your pre-trial demands reasonable or risk losing prejudgement interest from the date of the demand. [read post]
9 May 2016, 4:00 am
There are many reasons a PAE may not be practicing its patents including because it is directed purely to research, such as a university or its operating business was not successful or it purchased the patent from an innovator. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 9:52 pm
(Interesting §230 consequences!) [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
As of the date of the inspection, each of these firearms could be lawfully purchased in California, and Tracy Rifle regularly carries each of the four guns depicted in the windows. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Inventory purchases are encouraged as a participation activity, rather than something that represents retail sales. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 1:54 pm
Stated differently, “direct liability must be premised on conduct that can reasonably be described as the direct cause of the infringement. [read post]
12 Jan 2016, 7:54 am
”—a direct quote from Uber’s website. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 3:28 am
Subsection 10.01(b), captioned “Sale of Membership Interest Where Selling Member Receives Prior Offer,” required a Selling Member who receives a bona fide third-party purchase offer to offer to sell to the other member on the same terms and conditions as the third-party offer. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 12:12 pm
For starters, there was the unique "direct to consumer" exception to the learned intermediary rule that the Supreme Court had adopted in Perez v. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 9:10 am
Rejecting that standard as “too stringent,” the Eleventh Circuit held that the “purchase price or replacement cost and date of purchase are sufficient to prove actual case value for household items destroyed by fire. [read post]
