Search for: "Harris v. Securities and Exchange Commission"
Results 121 - 140
of 164
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Jan 2014, 9:48 am
It also was announced that the Securities and Exchange Commission was deploying predictive coding to its Division of Enforcement staff to search and analyze hundreds of terabytes of ESI. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 10:27 am
Harris. [read post]
17 Sep 2013, 1:54 pm
In Singh v. [read post]
2 May 2013, 9:31 am
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this Question and Answer exchange for our readers. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 6:28 am
Pratt, SP&V, LLC, and Timothy V. [read post]
3 Apr 2013, 12:47 pm
Barbato, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 41034), Craighead v. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 7:50 am
In a pre-oral argument post on this blog, I noted that it seemed odd that the Securities and Exchange Commission was still litigating market timing cases after all these years. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 12:04 pm
Most recently, the EEOC secured approval of another settlement in EEOC v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 9:49 am
Securities & Exchange Commission — definition of time limit for SEC to seek penalties for securities fraud 12-98 — Delia v. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 8:02 am
But not even the Securities and Exchange Commission can say for sure. [read post]
2 Jun 2012, 12:12 pm
An interesting exampleconcerns Harry Potter books. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 11:47 am
–based securities laws violations, Section 21 of the Exchange Act provides proper authority for the relief sought by the commission,” she held. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 7:10 am
One particularly relevant case is Harris v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 7:02 pm
Trustee Want Chapter 11 Trustee for West End Financial The Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 7:15 am
It traces back to SEC v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
Ornstein, 51 S.E.C. 135, 137 (1992); Dep’t of Enforcement v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 10:27 am
Ornstein, 51 S.E.C. 135, 137 (1992); Depandrsquo;t of Enforcement v. [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]
13 Sep 2010, 1:04 am
Sharesleuth took a closer look at the registration statement covering the resale of those shares, and found that no fewer than eight people who participated in the placement have been the subject of Securities and Exchange Commission actions or criminal prosecutions. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:00 am
Section 922 excludes more whistleblowers Oddly enough, if you gain the case information through the performance of an audit of financial statements required under the securities laws and, for you in your position, submission of the information to the SEC would be contrary to the requirements of section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78j-1), forget about it. [read post]
