Search for: "Sellers v. Sellers"
Results 281 - 300
of 5,885
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2022, 12:55 pm
M/V Arica, Civil Action No. 20-679-RGA, 2022 U.S. [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 4:40 am
Telge, 139 N.H. 407 (1995), which dismissed a homeowner’s implied warranty claim against the seller who wasn’t also the builder, but allowed an implied warranty claim to proceed against the septic installer hired by that seller. [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 12:15 am
Yesterday, I discussed the confused characterization of the defendant in Carbon Crest, LLC v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 1:39 pm
The complaint alleges that in the Offering Documents and in statements during the class period, the defendants made false or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company had defective financial controls; (ii) as a result, there were errors in the Company’s financial statements related to the misclassification of certain shares issued prior to the Business Combination; (iii) accordingly, the Company would need to restate certain of its financial statements; (iv)… [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 12:20 pm
Jump Operations, LLC v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 4:32 am
Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition v. [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 4:51 am
From Sida v. [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 3:58 am
That’s what happened in Frydco Capital Group, LLC v Carlton Fields, P.A. [read post]
21 Apr 2022, 6:00 am
Qlarant, Inc. v. [read post]
CFPB files lawsuit against TransUnion and former executive alleging violations of 2017 consent order
20 Apr 2022, 11:11 am
Further, the complaint includes claims that the corporate defendants violated (1) the EFTA and Regulation E by failing to comply with the requirements for preauthorized electronic fund transfers, (2) Regulation V (which implements the Fair Credit Reporting Act) by using advertisements that interfered with or undermined consumers’ rights to obtain a free credit report annually, and (3) the CFPA by way of the alleged EFTA/Reg E/Reg V violations. [read post]
19 Apr 2022, 5:05 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 1:14 am
" And she is spot-on that the case law on tying suggests Section 1 even applies when a seller exploits its control over a product and "[t]he buyer plays no role beyond purchasing the goods under conditions set by the seller. [read post]
16 Apr 2022, 9:43 am
Sellers v. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 3:55 am
The Supreme Court’s determination that Howard Fensterman’s conduct during the settlement of the New Franklin litigation “was simply a product of his conflict of interest in representing both buyers and sellers in the New Franklin and Fort Tyron transactions” is a premature factual finding inappropriate at this stage of the litigation (see Warney v State of New York, 16 NY3d 428, 436-437; Matter of Gerard P. v Paula P., 186 AD3d 934, 938). [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 5:34 am
We will help you develop a comprehensive strategy to protect you and your business. [1] See South Dakota v. [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 9:01 pm
Current proposals include: (i) imposing a mandatory “cooling-off” period of 120 days for officers and directors, and 30 days generally, between when a plan is adopted or modified and when trading can commence; (ii) requiring directors and officers to personally certify to the company that they are not in possession of material nonpublic information at the time of adoption or modification of a plan; (iii) providing that the affirmative defense under Rule 10b5-1(c)(1) does not apply… [read post]
11 Apr 2022, 12:44 pm
And check out our other blog, The Divorce Asset Hunter. [1] Meyer v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 12:13 pm
A similar question was recently raised in Petunia Products, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 12:13 pm
A similar question was recently raised in Petunia Products, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2022, 9:00 am
There was therefore no error in the case. (1) Defendant’s challenge to the second step of the Batson analysis was preserved; (2) The State’s proffered explanations for its use of peremptory challenges were racially neutral; (3) The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the defendant failed to show purposeful discrimination under the totality of circumstances State v. [read post]
