Search for: "DAVID BELL v. THE STATE" Results 141 - 160 of 374
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
23 Jan 2017, 1:25 am by INFORRM
Last week in the Courts On 16 January 2017, Sir David Eady heard the PTR and applications in the case of Todary v W1 Cars Ltd. [read post]
20 Nov 2016, 5:00 am by Barry Sookman
VMedia: The David and Goliath battle over the future of TV https://t.co/K4UEiDssBv -> Supreme Court Renders Landmark Privacy decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 11:10 am by Amy Howe
Helmerich & Payne points to the Supreme Court’s 1946 decision in Bell v. [read post]
14 Jun 2016, 12:00 am by Mark Meyer
These investigations have to do with what the companies knew about the conditions at their plants and what they did (or chose not do) about it.Furthermore, under the Park Doctrine, any corporate officer who had "authority with respect to the conditions that formed the basis of the alleged violations" can be held liable, United States v. [read post]
8 May 2016, 4:15 pm by INFORRM
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions  Australia In the case of Dods v McDonald (No.2) [2016] VSC 201, Bell J awarded damages of Aus$150,000 to a police officer against a barrister who are jury had found had defamed him in online comments. [read post]
6 Apr 2016, 6:41 am
Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit 2008) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corporation v. [read post]
30 Mar 2016, 4:30 am
"  And thus we have an introduction to today’s case, Tersigni v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:24 pm by Howard Knopf
Whether the Courts will agree may be another matter, which may get addressed in judicial review of this decision and perhaps much sooner in the AC v. [read post]