Search for: "Doe v Bloomberg, L.P." Results 1 - 20 of 50
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
And it is incumbent on each of us to make sure it does not come to pass and that investors are not harmed by noncompliance with the securities laws when it comes to this new technology. [read post]
16 Jan 2024, 1:19 pm by Kevin LaCroix
During the close-to-close trading sessions affected by a short report, defendant issuers’ stock price declined by 16.8%, on average, and incurred additional declines of 16.0% during the 90-day look-back period of Section 21D(e)(1) of the Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act.[3][4] Third, Rule 10b-5 private securities fraud lawsuits based primarily on activist short-seller research may not be indicative of actual fraud-on-the-market since the work product does not… [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 4:45 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The defendants improperly raised this issue for the first time in their reply affirmation, and there is no indication that the plaintiffs were afforded the opportunity to submit a surreply affirmation (see Ayers v Bloomberg, L.P., 203 AD3d 872, 875). [read post]
12 Nov 2021, 9:52 am by Eugene Volokh
Plaintiff retorts that this argument "just does not make sense" because the witnesses are medical professionals—or medical students—who often use the name "Jane Doe" to refer to unidentified female patients. [read post]
18 Jul 2018, 7:40 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Bloomberg L.P., 756 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2014)). [read post]
12 Mar 2017, 11:14 pm by Steve Baird
Apparently, Bloomberg L.P. purchased BNA (the Bureau of National Affairs, publisher of USPQ) for about $1 billion, back in 2011. [read post]
21 Jan 2017, 4:30 am by Gregory B. Williams
Bloomberg L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 14-561-GMS (D.Del., January 19, 2017), the Court granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. [read post]