Search for: "Corporations A, B, and C"
Results 1101 - 1120
of 7,266
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2016, 9:18 am
This subsection shall not be construed to affect the right of the court to effectuate an equitable distribution of property between the parties in an action for divorce pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:34-23.b. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 2:19 am
” Filed under: Abusive intent, Benefit of the doubt, Para. 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, Para. 4(c)(i) of the Policy, Reverse domain name hijacking, UDRP Rule 15(e), UDRP Rule 3(b)(xiv) [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 1:14 pm
In rejecting the plan, the court stated: But Rule 23(c)(4) may not be used to manufacture predominance for the purposes of Rule 23(b)(3). [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 7:33 am
Chicken Liver Recall Prompted by this outbreak, Schreiber Processing Corporation recalled an undetermined amount of broiled chicken liver products. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 7:33 am
Chicken Liver Recall Prompted by this outbreak, Schreiber Processing Corporation recalled an undetermined amount of broiled chicken liver products. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 2:16 am
Cordis Corporation (February 1, 2007), the Federal Circuit held that the lower court erred in granting Voda leave to amend his complaint to add infringement claims based on foreign patents under 28 U.S.C. [read post]
11 Sep 2023, 4:37 am
In short, the majority wrote, “[c]laims for excessive compensation and other misuses or diversions of corporate funds belong to the corporation, not the stockholders. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 2:45 am
The Board dismissed this Section 2(d) opposition to registration of PF POCKET FOODS CORPORATION & Design for pocket sandwiches [POCKET FOODS CORPORATION disclaimed], finding it not likely to cause confusion with with the marks HOT POCKETS and LEAN POCKETS for frozen stuffed sandwiches. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 12:46 pm
Good point--but here are the pennies anyway: This issue is particularly important from a civil justice perspective, particularly when you think of the implications of giving a company legal immunity simply because it can: a) say "the government told us to do it," b) say "we didn't know it was illegal," and/or c) pay the decisionmakers enough to actually listen to arguments a) and b) and then actually grant them immunity for breaking the law… [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 6:25 pm
§ 1141(c). [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 3:14 pm
(Pix (c) Larry Catá Backer 2013) States and the international community have been moving toward one of three distinct approaches to regulating corporate governance. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 10:26 am
Persp. 49 (1988); Michael C. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 12:19 pm
Among the most common criticisms are concerns that (a) the DPA/NPA regime inappropriately excuses corporate criminal behavior; (b) by continually entering DPAs and NPAs, the DOJ can shield its expansive interpretation of important statutes from judicial review; (c) the factors that determine whether the DOJ grants a DPA or NPA are not transparent; and (d) the use of corporate DPAs and NPAs leads to fewer prosecutions of culpable individuals within the… [read post]
7 May 2011, 10:28 am
Magazine http://bit.ly/kM7b4T // RT @BCorporation Great feature on B Corps ... [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 10:13 am
The Supreme Court has granted a writ of certiorari in the software patent case of ALICE CORPORATION PTY. [read post]
18 Oct 2016, 7:43 am
Kaplinsky In its decision last week in PHH Corporation v. [read post]
7 Oct 2012, 12:14 am
State B is the only state in which Corporation conducts its business. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
Section 251(c). [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 8:54 am
” While clearly not as extensive and as fulsome a remedy as reinstatement under section 79(2)(b) of the Act, the remedy under section 79(2)(c) seeks, as far as is economically possible, to return the employee to the position he or she would have been in had the employer’s misconduct not occurred. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 8:54 am
” While clearly not as extensive and as fulsome a remedy as reinstatement under section 79(2)(b) of the Act, the remedy under section 79(2)(c) seeks, as far as is economically possible, to return the employee to the position he or she would have been in had the employer’s misconduct not occurred. [read post]
