Search for: "Smith v. General Investments, Inc." Results 1 - 20 of 233
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2015, 8:49 am by John Jascob
Decided in 1979, Smith set forth a five-element test for identifying securities: (1) the investment of money or money’s worth; (2) investment in a venture; (3) the expectation of some benefit to the investor as a result of the investment; (4) contribution towards the risk capital of the venture; and (5) the absence of direct control over the investment or policy decisions concerning the venture. [read post]
25 Nov 2015, 2:04 pm by Ronald Mann
In an unusual twist, though, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 1:30 pm
On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the California judgment is unenforceable for lack of personal jurisdiction, (2) the contract is unenforceable under the Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), General Statutes § 42-134a et seq., and (3) the amount of damages awarded by the trial court was improper. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 10:47 am by Glenn R. Reiser
Protameen Chemicals, Inc., 160 N.J. 352, 368 (1999) (“Balsamides“), and Lawson Mardon Wheaton, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 11:32 am
Protameen Chemicals, Inc., 160 N.J. 352, 368 (1999) (“Balsamides“), and Lawson Mardon Wheaton, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 10:53 am by Joel Beck
Grubman et al., a case brought by a group of former WorldCom, Inc. shareholders against Salomon Smith Barney & Co (Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.) and its financial analyst Jack Grubman. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:55 am by Hugh Tomlinson QC, Matrix Law
On Wednesday 20 July 2011, the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in R v Smith which was heard on 16 June 2011. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 11:46 am by Beck, et al.
Howmedica, Inc., 490 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir. 2007) (fragmentation of device after six years of implantation "not something that is so generally recognizable as to qualify under the so-called common knowledge exception") (applying Nebraska law); Rolon-Alvarado v. [read post]
6 Jan 2010, 12:47 pm
“Courts, and especially Federal courts, are becoming more and more friendly to Wall Street,” says securities attorney William Shepherd, whose investment fraud law firm, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas, LLP represents investors nationwide. [read post]
31 May 2011, 3:17 pm by Lawrence Cunningham
There were no investments, securities, or returns or losses, and without those attributes the idea of an account is a nullity. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 8:40 am
Shepherd, Smith, and Edwards is committed to representing investors who have been the victims of unsuitable investments, unauthorized transactions, and other wrongful acts. [read post]