Search for: "DOES 1-100, exclusive" Results 1401 - 1420 of 1,965
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2019, 12:59 pm by Kevin LaCroix
As discussed in a recent academic paper, prior to 2016, very few cases involved the payment of a mootness fee; in 2018, not only were 100% of all merger objection cases involving completed deals dismissed, but 63% involved the payment to the plaintiffs’ counsel of a mootness fee. [read post]
22 Jan 2024, 11:54 am by Zachary Lerner
Does the diligent search need to be conducted each and every time a policy is issued or renewed? [read post]
6 May 2011, 7:59 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Extremely difficult to regulate these very sophisticated entities always 1-2 steps ahead of their regulators. [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 5:01 am by Teresa Chen, Alana Nance, Han-ah Sumner
” As of April 1, Sogavare maintains that concerns about development of a Chinese base in the Solomon Islands are “misinformation” and that the agreement does not invite China to establish a base. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 10:40 am by Rich McHugh
A brief explanation of provisions contained in the proposed budget that affect employer benefit plans (directly or indirectly) are as follows: 1. [read post]
3 May 2023, 12:32 pm by Samuel Hoff
The Colorado Privacy Act (“Colorado Act”), which will become effective on July 1, 2023. [read post]
3 May 2023, 12:32 pm by Samuel Hoff
The Colorado Privacy Act (“Colorado Act”), which will become effective on July 1, 2023. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 4:06 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
What does this tell us about the scope of the case? [read post]
28 Apr 2021, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
Congress does not set spending laws by instructing the executive branch to spend “up to” certain amounts. [read post]
26 Dec 2019, 8:52 am by Dan Harris
In Sourcing from China 101, Part 1: Do You Need a Sourcing Agent? [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 1:01 pm by Josh Blackman
Second, they acknowledged that the President obviously does not appoint himself, but countered that the Appointments Clause does not define who are the "Officers of the United States. [read post]