Search for: "Securities Co. v. United States"
Results 101 - 120
of 4,172
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2015, 5:51 pm
On May 5, 2015, in Kelly v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 8:50 am
In their article, Schwartz and Hack point out that a prior Supreme Court decision, Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. [read post]
20 Dec 2010, 10:39 am
Interestingly, although the bill may be inextricably linked with General Security Indemnity Co. of Arizona v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 9:53 am
On July 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued the much-anticipated ruling on class certification in Erica P. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 11:04 am
United States, , 389 U.S. 347, 360, 88 S.Ct. 507, 516 (1967) (J. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 10:36 am
Just before the clock struck 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit weighed in on the constitutionality of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or “Commission”) administrative law judges. [read post]
30 Aug 2018, 12:13 pm
Circuit 2011) (dissent) El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 9:07 am
On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated decision in Halliburton Co., et al. v. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 4:03 pm
This decision establishes important limits on SLUSA preclusion and the scope of the United States Supreme Court’s seminal SLUSA decision, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 11:36 am
Nearly all of these token sales have been characterized by their promoters as the sales of digital assets or currencies, rather than as the sale of securities, and have not been registered as securities in the United States. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 11:36 am
Nearly all of these token sales have been characterized by their promoters as the sales of digital assets or currencies, rather than as the sale of securities, and have not been registered as securities in the United States. [read post]
18 Aug 2015, 5:23 pm
Halliburton Co., the United States Supreme Court held that in connection with a motion for class certification in a securities class action lawsuit, a defendant should have the opportunity to try to rebut the presumption of reliance by showing that the alleged misrepresentation did not impact the defendant company’s share price. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 10:17 am
By the Kean Miller State and Local Tax Team On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in South Dakota v. [read post]
7 Aug 2015, 6:14 am
Ct. 2398 (2014) (“Halliburton II“), where the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant in a securities fraud class action could introduce evidence of a lack of price impact at the class certification stage to show the absence of predominance. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 12:00 am
In Desta v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 10:56 am
Will the United States Supreme Court’s decision on Halliburton impact Canadian securities class actions? [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 8:10 am
SCOTUS, Executive Privilege, and United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2018, 5:54 am
Rather, the Court stated that “Section 10(b) reaches the use of a manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance only in connection with the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, and the purchase or sale of any other security in the United States. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 3:22 pm
United States, is still pending. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 2:01 am
See United States v. [read post]
