Search for: "Provident Nat. Bank v. United States" Results 61 - 80 of 195
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Sep 2014, 1:10 pm by Christopher McEachran
Nat’l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), in concluding that the Dodd-Frank Act was not intended to apply extraterritorially. [read post]
26 Sep 2021, 8:08 pm by Francis Pileggi
The Delaware Supreme Court has announced a revised standard for an important aspect of corporate litigation: the analysis of pre-suit demand futility for purposes of pursuing a derivative stockholder claim, in United Food and Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food Industry Employers Tri-State Pension Fund. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 6:00 am by David Kris
  For example, a U.S. provider that stores data in the United States, from the email account of a British citizen located in England, might be simultaneously required (by DRIPA) and forbidden (by ECPA/SCA) to produce the email.[19]  Correspondingly, a U.S. provider that stores email abroad might be simultaneously required (by the SCA) and forbidden (by a foreign data protection law) to produce the email. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 6:11 am by Chris Wesner
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON In re: GYPC, INC., Debtor Case No. 17‐31030 Adv. [read post]