Search for: "Phillips v. Securities and Exchange Commission"
Results 61 - 68
of 68
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2011, 2:02 pm
Phillip Tillet v The Queen (Belize), heard 9 June 2011. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 9:00 pm
However, James Hardie lost its own appeal (see separate judgment James Hardie Industries NV v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 332), when the Court upheld a ruling that the company made misleading statements to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) in 2002 about its ability to “meet all asbestos claims and as to remaining asbestos claims”. [read post]
1 Nov 2009, 8:58 pm
” [33] However, due to the fact that the Tribune Company filed separately from the Chicago Cubs organization, the team should be clear from such action. [34] V. [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 6:51 am
SEC Plans The Securities and Exchange Commission plans to weigh in this week on an investor lawsuit against Joseph Collins, Refco Inc.'s former outside lawyer, and his law firm, Mayer Brown LLP, said Salvatore Graziano, a lawyer at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP in New York representing the plaintiffs. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 7:19 am
The New Orleans Employees' Retirement System claims the investment bank's Swiss bankers acted improperly and violated Securities and Exchange Commission regulations when they sold securities in the United States even though they lacked the necessary licensing. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm
Phillips Issue: Whether a prison librarian can face personal liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for preventing an inmate from using a comb-binding machine to file a petition for certiorari at the U.S. [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 7:36 am
Box 1358 Hot Springs, AR 71902 Phone: (501) 624-4411 (V/TDD) Fax: (501) 624-019 DISABILITY ORGANIZATIONS ADAPT Arkansas ADAPT Leonard Boyle Phone: (501) 565-8495 Verlon McKay Phone: (501) 568-1887 Fax: (501) 821-4087 AIDS Arkansas AIDS Foundation P.O. [read post]
10 Jul 2007, 8:08 am
Makor Issues & Rights, most legal observers concluded that the justices took a balanced approach because they did not erect a higher barrier to investor plaintiffs, as industry groups and the Securities and Exchange Commission had asked the court to do. [read post]
