Search for: "Frank v. United States" Results 181 - 200 of 2,065
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2014, 3:44 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:11-cv-02075). [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 8:13 am by Jennifer Farer
On March 4, 2014, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court decided its first case under Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protection provision, Section 806. [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 7:32 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Thousands of Whistleblowers At-Risk of Losing Protection WASHINGTON, DC – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES, November 28, 2017 — The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in a major precedent setting whistleblower case, Digital Realty Trust v. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 5:24 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, Respondent, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit admonished the Securities and Exchange Commission that the federal regulator's imposition of a collateral bar for pre-Dodd Frank misconduct was an impermissible retroactive sanction. [read post]
18 Jun 2014, 9:00 am by P. Andrew Torrez
§ 78u-6(h)(1)(a), apply to an employee who is terminated by a non-U.S. corporation that does business in (and is regulated by) the United States. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am by David Wagner
This post is based on input and analysis from Reed Smith attorneys across the United States. [read post]
25 Nov 2017, 4:42 am
(Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief / Emergency Temporary Restraining Order Sought / United States District Court for the District of Columbia / 17-CV-02534 / November 26, 2017) http://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/EnglishvTrump.pdf As set forth in the "Summary" of the Complaint:The Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as an independent federal agency, to be led by a single director. [read post]
14 Apr 2007, 12:10 pm
The plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for for retaliatory and discriminatory discharge in violation of Title VII and Maryland law. [read post]