Search for: "Price v. Cross"
Results 701 - 720
of 1,756
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2022, 4:21 am
” North Carolina Supreme Court Holds Dissenters to Deal Price in Big Tobacco Merger Reynolds American Inc. v Third Motion Equities Master Fund Ltd., 2021-NCSC-162 [N. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 4:50 am
The Court saw the license denial as an effort by New York to horde a resource and thereby keep prices for its consumers low.Edwards v California (1941) considered a challenge to a California law aimed at reducing the influx of dustbowl indigents to the state. [read post]
18 May 2013, 5:30 am
http://t.co/n5iepbsZ1x -> Aereo fine-tunes its TV streaming prices, plans – expansion before the service is shut down? [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 12:17 am
Cross-elasticity of demand is economic jargon, which looks at the extent to which a change in the price of one product will alter demand for another product. [read post]
22 Feb 2017, 12:17 am
Cross-elasticity of demand is economic jargon, which looks at the extent to which a change in the price of one product will alter demand for another product. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 10:33 am
U.S. and Texas v. [read post]
16 Feb 2015, 1:44 am
This post summarises the issues of drug prices and access to medicines, which received the most comments from readers of the previous posts. [read post]
3 Apr 2010, 3:28 am
The Supreme Court decision in Padilla v. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 3:19 am
The defendants cross moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 2:34 am
State Street Corporation (PDF 4.5 MB)Lawsuit Alleges Fraud Against Two California State Pension Funds10/20/2009
Criminal Complaint in the Matter of U.S. v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:51 pm
O & E anticipates that the purchase price will exceed the sum of $ 1.1 million. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 3:42 am
” The incentive is even more powerful when linked to a mandatory redemption or buy-out at an unfavorable price and/or on unfavorable terms for the terminated owner. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 9:46 am
Silver v. [read post]
6 Nov 2022, 9:49 am
There was no evidence whatsoever that the price achieved for flat 901 in 2018 had anything to do with the existence of any noise. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 6:33 am
See Kiobel v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 5:15 am
Recently, in the unreported decision of Pacifico v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm
On Mr B's aplication for a stay until determination of his planning appeal, this did not stand a realistic prospect of success Against the argued precedents of South Buckinghamshire District Council v Smith [2006] EWHC 281 QB, South Cambridgeshire DC v Price [2008] EWHC 1234 (Admin) and Brentwood Borough Council v Ball [2009] EWHC 2433 (QB), where injunctions had been refused pending planning appeals, there was the fact that these all concerned injunction… [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 4:19 pm
On Mr B's aplication for a stay until determination of his planning appeal, this did not stand a realistic prospect of success Against the argued precedents of South Buckinghamshire District Council v Smith [2006] EWHC 281 QB, South Cambridgeshire DC v Price [2008] EWHC 1234 (Admin) and Brentwood Borough Council v Ball [2009] EWHC 2433 (QB), where injunctions had been refused pending planning appeals, there was the fact that these all concerned injunction… [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 11:05 am
Since many share repurchases are executed over time[v], company boards should be able to demonstrate intended impact with resulting price and valuation multiples as well as discussion over whether repurchase should continue; i.e. whether the repurchase program is having the desired effect. [read post]
11 Feb 2011, 5:23 am
Kwikset Corp. v. [read post]
