Search for: "Stock v. State"
Results 281 - 300
of 5,631
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jan 2009, 1:26 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 May 2008, 10:00 am
In addition to state standards and the requirements of SOX, the stock exchanges have each adopted their own standards for director independence. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 5:00 am
In SEC v. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 12:00 am
SEC v. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 2:27 am
Matthew Connolly and Gavin Campbell Black, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 19-CR-3806 / January 27, 2022)New York Stock Promoter Sentenced to Prison for Pump and Dump Securities Fraud Scheme (DOJ Release)... [read post]
17 Mar 2010, 5:01 am
We are discussing Kurz v. [read post]
10 Jul 2009, 2:36 pm
A Seattle district court had earlier enjoined Washington from enforcing a state law that required pharmacies to stock the pill; today’s ruling dissolves that injunction. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 12:00 am
In Hawkins v. [read post]
7 Jun 2024, 2:00 am
Connelly v. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 6:19 am
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (D. [read post]
1 Mar 2009, 9:58 am
I think four is too many and two of them (from Iqbal v. [read post]
30 Nov 2016, 7:10 am
” Madden v. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 11:25 am
Debonneville v. [read post]
21 Feb 2011, 5:00 am
We are discussing Morrison v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 2:44 pm
” Pfeiffer v. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 11:58 am
” The court further bolsters its analysis with Supreme Court of Virginia case law (Parish v. [read post]
29 Apr 2012, 4:15 pm
In Wandry v. [read post]
1 May 2008, 7:29 am
See United States v. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 9:39 am
As a result, the court denied a motion to remand the action that alleged MoneyGram made materially false statements in a prospectus supplement associated with an offering of the company’s stock (Iron Workers District Council v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 4:50 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States has issued an important class certification decision, and it is not Dukes v. [read post]