Search for: "US v. Banks" Results 9741 - 9760 of 12,628
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Mar 2010, 10:34 am by Kurt J. Schafers
As a result of this change, statutory disqualification under Exchange Act Section 15(b)(4)(H) includes a person that:is subject to any final order of a State securities commission (or any agency or officer performing like functions), State authority that supervises or examines banks, savings associations, or credit unions, State insurance commission (or any agency or office performing like functions), an appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined in section 3 of the Federal… [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 4:06 pm by Jacob Fishman
More broadly, this Article considers the potential for law to be used to achieve bold aims. [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 11:45 am
Supreme Court's decision in Buckeye Check Cashing v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 8:40 am by Sally-Ann Underhill
However, the efficiencies of electronic trading systems are not confined to the container industry alone and with members of the largest trading companies, trade finance banks, mining companies and oil majors using such systems, it is clear that they are becoming increasingly prevalent in the shipping industry as a whole. [read post]
14 Nov 2016, 12:25 am by INFORRM
 We have not been able to locate a copy of this but will post it if it is sent to us. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:30 am by Legal Beagle
  As summarised in an Isle of Man judgment, the scheme resembled a “Ponzi” scheme in that apparent repayments to HC were in fact funded in a circular way by HC itself:  see paragraph 30 of the judgment of His Honour Deemster Corlett, Heather Capital Limited v KPMG Audit LLC, 17 November 2015. [9]        A third party, Nicholas Levene, was a participant in the scheme. [read post]
11 Apr 2017, 3:01 pm
  Comments and suggestions (especially for compiling a useful student friendly reading list) gratefully received as this remains very much a work in progress. [read post]
9 May 2018, 4:35 pm by Aurora Barnes
§ 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague; (2) whether conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery has as an element “the use … of physical force against the person or property of another,” 18 U.S.C. [read post]