Search for: "SEC v. American Pension Services" Results 41 - 60 of 65
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2018, 6:01 am
Posted by Vishal Gupta, Sandra Mortal, and Xiaohu Guo (University of Alabama), on Saturday, April 21, 2018 Tags: Compensation ratios, Diversity, Executive Compensation, Management Corporate Governance Deviance Posted by Ruth V. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 2:08 pm by UChicagoLaw
  And we all know that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Schenk v. [read post]
10 May 2017, 10:20 am by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
A Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. [read post]
26 Sep 2022, 7:59 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (EEOC v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 1:13 pm by jak4
Sullivan, “Shareholder Bylaw Proposals, Delaware Certification, and the SEC After CA, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 3:21 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
 See, Businesses Must Confirm & Clean Up Health Plan ACA & Other Compliance Following Supreme Court’s King v. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
In September 2008, the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was followed by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America and an $85 billion (and now $170 billion) government investment in American International Group. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 12:32 pm by Marketing
”[vii] “This ‘unique’ standard of proof is lower than any other in contemporary American jurisprudence and reflects ‘the high esteem in which our nation holds those who have served in the Armed Services. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm by Noah Brown
Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 12:45 pm by Sasha Volokh
Germaine, a surgeon appointed by the Commissioner of Pensions to examine pensioners was prosecuted for violating an extortion statute that applied to "officer[s] of the United States. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 1:22 pm by Bexis
  The plaintiffs are the now common-place third party payers (mostly union pension funds) ("TPPs") who claim they paid too much for the drug in reimbursing prescriptions that doctors made for members of TPP plans.In addition to the consumer fraud claims we’ve mentioned, there are state antitrust claims (the issue mostly being whether indirect purchasers barred from recovering under federal antitrust law by Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]