Search for: "Clayton v. The Procter "
Results 1 - 9
of 9
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2007, 3:21 am
See Conte Bros., 165 F.3d at 227-30; Procter & Gamble Co. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 3:21 am
See Conte Bros., 165 F.3d at 227-30; Procter & Gamble Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2020, 5:58 am
Brownstein, Sabastian V. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 6:04 am
Pastuszenski, Goodwin Procter LLP, on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 Tags: California, Class actions, Jurisdiction, New York, PSLRA, Securities Act, Securities litigation, Shareholder suits, SLUSA, State law, Supreme Court CalPERS v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
Emody v. [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 3:03 am
Cydney Posner’s blog provides a good overview of the lawsuit and notes that it’s patterned after the lawsuit challenging California’s board gender diversity law, SB 826: Framed as a “taxpayer suit” much like Crest v. [read post]
19 Oct 2020, 3:00 am
Anyway, here’s Chair Clayton’s statement on the adoption of the amendments, and here’s the customary dissenting statement from Commissioners Lee and Crenshaw. [read post]
23 Jul 2023, 9:01 pm
Stated in the form of 13 individual guidelines for assessing M&A activity, the draft document reads like an outline of every way the FTC and DOJ might challenge a deal as meeting the Clayton Act’s prohibition: a transaction where the effect “may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly. [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 1:07 pm
FTC v. [read post]
