Search for: "Polk v. Polk" Results 41 - 60 of 613
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
Posner, Cooley LLP, on Monday, December 19, 2022 Tags: board diversity, California, Crest v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
Posner, Cooley LLP, on Monday, December 19, 2022 Tags: board diversity, California, Crest v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 4:00 am by Elaine Hou
Most Viewed Posts of 2022 Here are the most viewed posts that were published in 2022: What American Hospital Association v. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 6:09 am by John Coyle
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. v. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 3:50 am by Tom Sharbaugh
,”‘Lockstep’ falls out of step with modern law firms,” FT.com, Dec 16, 2021 (discussing recent changes at Linklaters and Cravath); Debra Cassens Weiss, “BigLaw firm switches from strict lockstep compensation for partners to modified system,” ABA Journal, Sept 11, 2020 (discussing changes to lockstep model at Davis Polk). [read post]
This Update focuses on the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) and the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s (“DOJ”) antitrust enforcement activity over the last year under this Executive Order’s direction.2 For further details on the Executive Order, please see Davis Polk’s prior Client Update regarding issuance of the Executive Order.3 FTC and DOJ have been conducting intensive merger and conduct investigations FTC Chair Lina Khan was… [read post]
26 Jun 2022, 12:28 am by Bill Henderson
The main residence of Veraton, circa 1907. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“An attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of a retainer” (Attallah v Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, 168 AD3d 1026, 1028 [2d Dept 2019]; see AmBase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardwell, 8 NY3d 428, 435 [2007]). [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 3:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
” “It is well settled that “[a]n attorney may not be held liable for failing to act outside the scope of the retainer” (Genesis Merchant Partners, L.P. v Gilbride, Tusa, Last & Spellane, LLC, 157 AD3d 479,482 [1st Dept 2018], citingAmbase Corp. v Davis Polk & Wardell, 8 NY3d 428 [2007]). [read post]