Search for: "Scientific-Atlanta, Inc"
Results 61 - 80
of 177
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2012, 5:03 pm
As part of yesterday's resolution, the whistleblowers, one of whom is a former Abbott sales representative in Atlanta, will share $84 million from the federal share of the settlement amount. [read post]
20 May 2011, 2:56 pm
The complaint alleges that Cisco Systems, Inc. of San Jose, California, Cisco Consumer Products LLC of Irvine, California, Cisco Systems International B.V. of the Netherlands and Scientific Atlanta LLC of Lawrenceville, Georgia (collectively, “Cisco”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain equipment for communications networks including switches, routers, gateways, bridges, wireless access… [read post]
16 Jan 2008, 8:00 pm
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 9:12 am
In the Order, ALJ Gildea granted-in-part Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC’s (collectively, “Cisco”) motion to preclude Complainant MOSAID Technologies Inc. [read post]
6 Aug 2007, 2:55 pm
The former SEC members' brief is opposed by the parties sued in the case -- Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 11:31 am
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008) (see blog article here). [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 8:15 am
Scientific Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008). [read post]
16 Aug 2007, 9:03 am
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43 (U.S.). [read post]
23 Apr 2007, 2:24 pm
Scientific-Atlanta securities fraud case for the WSJ.com Law Blog. [read post]
26 Jul 2008, 3:55 pm
Scientific-Atlanta Inc., No. 06-43, and Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 8:35 pm
Scientific-Atlanta, it delivered a host of worker-friendly rulings in the employment context. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 9:41 am
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008) In that case, where this majority announced its affirmative opposition to cut back on actions brought under Rule 10b-5, Justice Stevens wrote a vigorous dissent. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 9:19 am
’s (“MOSAID”) motion to compel Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC’s (collectively, “Cisco”) to produce documents related to prior litigations involving Cisco and to produce agreements between Cisco and third parties. [read post]
1 Sep 2010, 4:14 am
"They have a very large product line," he says.However, in view of the product lines which have been implicated, the problem of false marking is a bit more complicated:Defendants include companies such as Procter & Gamble, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Cisco Systems, Scientific-Atlanta, Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., 3M Co., DirecTV, Medtronic Inc. [read post]
13 Dec 2011, 2:36 pm
By way of background, the Complainant in this investigation is MOSAID Technologies Inc. and the Respondents are Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Cisco Systems International B.V., and Scientific Atlanta LLC. [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 8:03 am
The underlying dispute in the Stoneridge case arises over claims that Scientific Atlanta, Inc., and Motorola, Inc., engaged in efforts to help a giant cable television firm, Charter Communications, inflate its financial statements artificially in order to bolster its stock's price. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 9:44 am
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., No. 06-43: Does engaging in transactions that have "no legitimate business or economic purpose exception to inflate artificially [a] public corporation's financial statements" subject the sham transactor to liability for securities fraud even if they "themselves made no public statements concerning those transactions"? [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 9:06 am
According to Order No. 22, Respondents Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Consumer Products LLC, Scientific-Atlanta LLC, and Cisco Systems International B.V. [read post]
16 Jan 2008, 3:21 pm
Scientific-Atlanta Inc. and Motorola Inc.) [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 9:58 am
Scientific Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008), or decisions governing class action certification, including Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
