Search for: "Stock v. State"
Results 101 - 120
of 5,631
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Nov 2019, 1:01 am
The case is CSARS V Atlas Capco South Africa (Pty) Ltd. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued another decision in United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued another decision in United States v. [read post]
2 May 2012, 4:00 am
United States placed non-publicly traded stock within a revocable trust. [read post]
15 Jul 2022, 8:46 am
Commissioner of Revenue Services (Tax appeal; assessment of taxes with respect to certain stock options and restricted stock units granted by employer as compensation for services performed both in this state and in New York) [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 4:21 am
Nebraska Supreme Court Overturns Application of Discounts In Fair-Value Buyout Bohac v Benes Service Co., 310 Neb. 722 [Neb. [read post]
19 Sep 2023, 11:41 am
Alsenz v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 1:44 am
Desimone v. [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 5:15 am
Weissman v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
Janus v. [read post]
8 Jan 2023, 4:25 am
” She noted that, as in United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 7:24 am
Our state difffers from many states which simply require compensation or money to make a non-compete agreement binding. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 4:48 pm
See United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2007, 5:34 am
Yesterday the Appellate Division, First Department reversed a lower court ruling and dismissed a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the New York Stock Exchange and its Chief Executive Officer John Thain - Hyman v New York Stock Exch., Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 09909. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 1:42 pm
The court interpreted this provision of the Articles Supplementary to establish a limitation upon the right of preferred stockholders to convert their stock, distinguishing the preferred stock at issue from convertible preferred securities. (3) The court declined to speculate about the possible ramification of Section 7(b) of the Articles Supplementary, related to voting rights, which had not been expressly argued.For Count II, the court held that the plaintiff had failed to… [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 11:34 am
This means the plan document states one of the purposes of the plan is to hold employer stock. [read post]
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]