Search for: "KMART HOLDINGS, INC."
Results 1 - 20
of 41
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Sep 2021, 5:00 am
Safeway, Inc., 466 F. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 10:35 am
(“Murray Energy”), which is the ultimate parent company of Met Holdings. [read post]
8 May 2019, 1:21 pm
Altman Grp., Inc. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 6:28 am
Mattress Firm Inc. [read post]
17 Dec 2018, 6:00 am
This hack follows other breaches this year at Macy’s Inc., Sears Holdings Corp., Kmart and Best Buy Co., Inc., among others. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 6:00 am
Anglin Co., Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 2:10 pm
Armstrong International, Inc. [read post]
22 Sep 2017, 6:40 am
Coty Inc. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2017, 1:31 pm
The possible consequences of such errors include (1) violating payor policies or requirements, leading to allegations of fraud, (2) Medicaid payment holds and referral to state Medicaid fraud control units (state attorneys general), and (3) liability for overpayments, including liability under the False Claims Act for improper retention of overpayments. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 4:11 pm
Penney Company, KMART Holding Corp and many others have faced legal action due to alleged ADA non-compliance. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 7:54 pm
Potential for head, neck and other injuries; by Toys R Us, Inc.; $49.99. [read post]
12 Sep 2015, 4:19 pm
Kmart of Wash., LLC, 153 Wash.App. 846, 223 P.3d 1247 (Washington Court of Appeals 2009). [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 6:07 am
Robert Welch, Inc. [read post]
21 Jan 2015, 7:54 am
Kmart Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02749 (N.D. [read post]
14 Jan 2015, 7:27 am
Kmart Corp.; and Fardig v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 1:18 pm
Kmart Corp., Case No. 14-cv-02749 (N.D. [read post]
25 Jan 2013, 12:41 am
Holding the Company Responsible The problem with the MTD snow throwers was caused by the tire defect and wheel rim issue. [read post]
20 Jun 2012, 7:10 am
After Sears, Roebuck & Co. merged with Kmart Corp. in 2005, the board of Sears Holdings Corp. inherited directors from both companies. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 5:35 am
Sassy Inc. [read post]
13 Nov 2011, 7:57 pm
" In holding so, the court did not do what was it charged to decide - to determine whether the Red Sole Mark identifies and distinguishes Louboutin as the source - but instead carved out a one-shoe-fits all exception that a single color for fashion items is never subject to protection. [read post]
