Search for: "State v. Stock"
Results 121 - 140
of 6,127
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2014, 11:04 am
Leiza Dolghih Attorney, Godwin Lewis PC The Texas Supreme Court in ExxonMobil Corp. v. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 9:32 am
Other New York state court rulings that have interpreted 47 USC 230 broadly include Shiamili v. [read post]
20 Dec 2011, 11:36 am
Secrist also stated that various regulatory agencies had failed to act on similar charges made by Equity Funding employees. [read post]
30 Aug 2012, 7:28 am
” [The Fulton is the US Supreme Court case Fulton Corp. v. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 5:00 am
In early 2016, Mazzal’s CEO entered into a stock purchase agreement (SPA) in which he agreed to sell 45.8 million restricted shares of Mazzal to B2. [read post]
31 May 2013, 11:27 am
In Cutler v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 8:41 am
On November 6, 2019, Zamansky LLC partner Sam Bonderoff represented the participants in the employee stock-ownership plan (“ESOP”) for IBM, and argued the case of Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 11:03 am
The case, Fifth Third Bank v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 9:35 am
Abbott Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 2:41 pm
Stock image. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 5:00 am
Ryan v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 6:36 am
Under Cheek v. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 9:39 am
In Cutler v. [read post]
21 Feb 2021, 11:24 pm
A company that provided administrative and payroll services was acquired by a bank under a stock purchase agreement. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
Berger Held: When stating a claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the board of directors in a stock-for-stock merger, the duty of profit maximization under Shenker v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 7:37 am
First, where a stock is publicly traded, allegations that a fiduciary should have recognized on the basis of publicly available information that the market was overvaluing or undervaluing the stock are generally implausible and thus insufficient to state a claim under Iqbal and Twombly. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 7:27 am
" Sansone v. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 10:22 am
In Marsh USA v. [read post]
9 Jun 2010, 7:22 pm
The trial judge entered judgment in favor of the employee in the amount of almost $850,000, stating that the employer granted the stock options for goals already achieved by the employee (even though the options had not vested).Analysis: The Court of Appeals reversed. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 3:42 pm
Stock image. [read post]
