Search for: "United States v. Stock"
Results 881 - 900
of 2,623
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
Guest Post: Halliburton II Price Impact Defenses Can Limit Severity on Deficient Exchange Act Claims
12 Jan 2021, 2:19 pm
Rather, the real winner is a growing cohort of lawyers who are filing meritless lawsuits in federal and state courts across the United States every time a merger or acquisition is announced or a corporate misfortune impacts a company’s share price… In the last five years, half of the nearly $23 billion in securities claims costs have gone to lawyers — both plaintiff and defense.[4] Since 2017, the plaintiffs’ bar has expanded their corporate… [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 9:08 pm
Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803), and the Executive’s constitutional duty “to preserve the national security,” United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
Additionally, non-employee directors receive an annual grant of fully earned and vested deferred stock units valued at $150,000. [read post]
13 Jan 2021, 7:21 am
In Collins v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 9:56 am
Comm’n v. [read post]
29 Apr 2018, 10:49 am
From Irish v. [read post]
3 Jun 2017, 6:07 am
For example, the Statement singles out the extractive industry (mining and oil and gas) due its importance to the Canadian economy, and its global reach, including the fact that over 50% of public mining companies in the world are listed on the TSX and TSX-V stock exchanges. [read post]
10 Sep 2013, 9:31 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 2:15 pm
United States, 127 S. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 3:58 am
Supreme Court in connection with Morrison v. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 4:15 pm
In the Morrison decision, the justices adopted a stricter “transactional test” whereby investors may only sue over “the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, and the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 5:37 am
In Fait v. [read post]
20 Dec 2009, 1:58 pm
Carney of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a frank and blistering opinion, threw out charges against two defendants in the Broadcom stock options back-dating case. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 4:41 am
“The attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communications known to the common law” (Upjohn Co. v United States, 449 US 383, 389; see Spectrum Sys. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 6:30 am
I have achieved a certain notoriety by refusing to teach Marbury, which I consider basically a waste of students’ valuable time in comparison with other cases—my stock example is Prigg v. [read post]
8 Jan 2014, 4:00 pm
Fifield v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 11:30 am
In Jones v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 3:05 pm
For these reasons, we hold that confirmation of the ICC’s award is not contrary to the public policy of the United States under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. [read post]
5 Dec 2014, 2:49 pm
Copyright: bbourdages / 123RF Stock Photo Last June, the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. [read post]
21 Nov 2018, 5:54 am
Rather, the Court stated that “Section 10(b) reaches the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance only in connection with the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, and the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States. [read post]
