Search for: "PARTY CITY HOLDINGS, INC." Results 1821 - 1840 of 2,327
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 May 2016, 9:31 am by Green, Schafle & Gibbs
The firm failed to obtain a distribution list for the offering document for any offerings.Alton Securities Group Inc. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 4:56 am by Rob Robinson
http://tinyurl.com/3onmom7 (Gina Passarella) Court Declines to Excuse Production where Party’s Negligent Failure to Preserve Rendered Data “Less Accessible”- http://tinyurl.com/42u3z5v (K&L Gates) Deduplication Defense Dodges Sanctions – http://tinyurl.com/3eglycw (Ralph Losey) Defendants’ “Completely Ineffective” Review Procedure and Failure to Rectify the Inadvertent Disclosure in a Timely Way Results in Finding of Waiver –… [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 4:44 pm by Thomas James
” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. [read post]
14 Oct 2021, 11:08 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the Oct. 8 conference) Returning Relists Dignity Health, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 8:54 am by WIMS
Lawrence Cities Initiative will hold its 2016 annual meeting in Niagara Falls. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 9:58 am by Amy Howe
The case arose because companies that provide services at Los Angeles International Airport argue that a labor-peace provision in the agreement that they are required to sign to operate at LAX – which is owned and operated by the city of Los Angeles and Los Angeles World Airports, a component of the city – is pre-empted by federal law. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 2:00 am by Steve Lombardi
See Uptown Food Store, 255 Iowa at 475-477, 123 N.W.2d at 67-68 (holding agreement not to compete contained in lease of property for a grocery store was enforceable, where lessor agreed not to engage in the food retail business within the city during the term of the lease and any renewals); L. [read post]
21 May 2015, 10:19 am by John Elwood
United States – holding that where a juror has communicated with a third party “about the matter pending before the jury,” an evidentiary hearing must be held to determine the prejudicial impact of the communication – was an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s clearly established law. [read post]