Search for: "Price v. Price"
Results 1901 - 1920
of 18,265
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2013, 1:02 pm
The agreed-upon price broke down to $1,500 per unit for the first ten -- less per unit than either the previously rejected bids for asbestos abatement or for installing drywall over the ceilings. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 11:30 am
SmithKline Beecham v. [read post]
11 Dec 2023, 4:53 am
” (ABS Partnership v AirTran Airways, (AD 3d 24, 29 [1st Dept 2003].) [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 8:08 am
The CFTC adequately alleged that Kraft had the ability to influence prices, and intended to and did create an artificial price. [read post]
14 Apr 2013, 2:38 pm
Gallo Winery v. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 1:51 pm
Boltex Mf’g Co. v. [read post]
23 Oct 2021, 1:38 am
The previous one discussed the L2 Mobile Technologies v. [read post]
4 May 2016, 6:30 am
In Couzzo Speed Technologies v. [read post]
25 Jan 2016, 8:41 am
Pruvit Ventures, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 12:23 am
”You can imagine what happens to the stock price. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:20 pm
In Muldrow v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 2:25 am
I have been considering the case of Walsh v Singh & Anor [2009] EWHC 3219 (Ch). [read post]
20 May 2011, 2:38 pm
Barak’s recent paper on the “rabbinic cartels” reminded me that I wanted to provide some updates on Kamakahi v. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 8:41 am
DBA Godiva Chocolatier, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 8:53 am
The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for consideration of Rule 23’s class definition, ascertainability, and numerosity requirements in light of its recent decision of Marcus v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 10:00 am
The case that brings up “puffery” is Viggiano v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 8:56 am
Diamond Sawblades Manufacturers’ Coalition v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 6:46 pm
According to the complaint, the company’s statements about the deal caused its stock to be artificially inflated, and shareholders incurred losses following a sharp decline in the price of the stock after a report by a forensic financial research firm called the deal “completely bogus” (Yannes v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 10:24 am
The issuance by the Third District Court of Appeals in Miami of the recent decision in Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, etc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 8:03 am
In a recent decision, the court agreed with the swindled would-be buyer, who argued that return of their $3 million dollar deposit was an independent condition In Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
