Search for: "Jones v. SEC"
Results 81 - 100
of 322
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2018, 10:31 am
Donald V. [read post]
19 Oct 2021, 6:54 am
Jones & Co. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2019, 6:00 am
Securities and Exchange Commission, on Friday, August 9, 2019 Tags: Capital formation, Innovation, Investor protection, IPOs, Public firms, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities enforcement, Securities regulation Finalized Volcker Rule Amendments Posted by V. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 12:28 pm
In his opinion for the majority in Jones v. [read post]
25 Jan 2014, 4:15 am
Jones v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 2:35 pm
., v. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 12:08 pm
Sec. 3 and found fault with the majority’s reliance on the U.S. [read post]
21 Aug 2010, 7:40 am
Here’s the abstract: In Jones v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 4:00 am
https://t.co/hrhDHmkcVh -> AM v Toronto Police Service, A presumption of notice to the media for anonymization applications? [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 1:36 pm
Michael Carvin from Jones Day argued for the Petitioners. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 4:00 am
Now that Jones v. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 7:30 pm
" This draconian sentence was upheld in State of Idaho v. [read post]
24 Jan 2008, 8:02 am
SEC. [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 8:07 am
In a recent article I discuss the forty years of chaos triggered by the more limited statutory fiduciary duty of mutual fund advisers regarding their compensation, still unresolved by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. [read post]
8 Jan 2010, 4:12 am
Inc., v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534; Penthouse Media Group v Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones [US Dist Ct, SD NY, 9 Civ 85, Scheindlin, J., 2009]). [read post]
13 May 2011, 1:05 am
Inc., v Flaum, 25 AD3d 534; Penthouse Media Group v Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones [US Dist Ct, SD NY, 9 Civ 85, Scheindlin, J., 2009]). [read post]
26 Aug 2016, 1:43 pm
Jones v. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 7:24 am
In a SOX whistleblower case by a CFO who was fired after alerting the SEC to financial irregularities, the Fourth Circuit addressed multiple procedural and substantive challenges to significant backpay and compensatory awards against the company, its CEO, and the chairman of the board, concluding that the four-year “catch-all” statute of limitations applied, that emotional distress damages were available under SOX Sec. 1514A, and that there was no abuse of discretion in… [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 11:38 am
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 7:42 am
Jones.) [read post]
