Search for: "In Re: Nvidia Corp. Sec. Litig." Results 1 - 16 of 16
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Nov 2007, 12:22 am
Electronic Arts, Linear Technology Corp., Nvidia Corp., PMC-Sierra Inc. and Zoran Corp. all reported in regulatory filings in the last two weeks that the SEC had closed its backdating investigations. [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 6:24 am by Unknown
”The petition argues that the Second Circuit has acknowledged its split from the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 holding in In re NVIDIA Corp. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 3:15 am by Liz Dunshee
” The petition argues that the Second Circuit has acknowledged its split from the Ninth Circuit’s 2014 holding in In re NVIDIA Corp. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
But irrespective of the context, if you’re speaking on AI, you too must ensure that you do so in a manner that is not materially false or misleading. [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 11:15 am by Kevin LaCroix
The In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation, filed in the U.S. [read post]
22 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
The Circuit Split On October 2, 2014, the Ninth Circuit in In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation held that a violation of Item 303 of Regulation S-K was not actionable by private litigants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.[8] NVIDIA is a publicly traded semiconductor manufacturer that, in the spring of 2008, disclosed two product defects leading to a $150-200 million charge to cover costs arising from the defects.[9] A class of investors… [read post]
26 Jan 2015, 10:42 am by John Stigi
  The Second Circuit recognized that its holding regarding Item 303 of Regulation S-K was directly “at odds” with the 2014 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in In re NVIDIA Corp. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
On Jan. 16, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2015, 4:26 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The Second Circuit expressly acknowledged that in ruling that an omission of a disclosure required under Item 303 can be actionable its conclusion was “at odds with” the Ninth Circuit’s October 2, 2014 opinion in In re NVIDIA Corp. [read post]