Search for: "Frank v. Securities " Results 81 - 100 of 1,947
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Sep 2018, 6:25 am by petrocohen
Founding partner at Petro Cohen Petro Matarazzo recognized on the Best Lawyers® list every year since 1995 Frank A. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 6:00 am by Doug Cornelius
Code § 78u-6 – Securities whistleblower incentives and protection Rule 21F Digital Realty Trust v. [read post]
1 Aug 2010, 2:07 pm by Hedge Fund Lawyer
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Act”) has changed a number of laws in all of the securities acts including the Commodity Exchange Act. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 4:39 am by Lindsay Offutt
Under the Dodd-Frank Act [text, PDF], whistleblowers are afforded protection... [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 5:13 am by John Jascob
In the revised, unpublished opinion, the court vacated a total of five industry bars in order to avoid impermissible retroactive effects of the Dodd-Frank Act (Imperato v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 8:20 pm by Lyle Roberts
There is rarely a dull moment when Judge Frank Easterbrook writes a securities litigation opinion. [read post]
22 Feb 2018, 7:00 am by Benjamin P. Edwards
The case resolves a controversy over whether employees making internal reports of securities law violations qualify for Dodd-Frank's whistleblower protections. [read post]
19 Feb 2007, 4:50 am
I will broadcast today from Eastern College, and hours two and three will feature a debate on America's role in the world between evangelical author and professor Tony Campolo and the Center for Security Policy's Frank... [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 6:23 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
  The anti-retaliation provision in Dodd-Frank is the most litigated and controversial part of the securities law. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 6:26 am
Overview In 2019, the Supreme Court issued an important securities law decision in Lorenzo v. [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 6:01 am
Securities and Exchange Commission (Docket No. 17-1077), a case that considers the potential liability for a false statement that is not “made” by a person under the now-familiar standard articulated in the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. [read post]