Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Delivery versus payment or DvP is a common form of settlement for securities.The process involves the simultaneous delivery of all documents necessary to give effect to a transfer of securities in exchange for the receipt of the stipulated payment amount.
If you register for a fee-based Service, you must designate a payment method and provide us with accurate billing and payment information. All billing information, including payment method, must be kept up to date. We will bill you for all fee-based Services through the payment method that is associated with any of your fee-based Services.
The payment card interchange fee and merchant discount antitrust litigation is a United States class-action lawsuit filed in 2005 by merchants and trade associations against Visa, Mastercard, and numerous financial institutions that issue payment cards.
The order itself contains an agreement that the claim is stayed and no further action can be taken in court (except for referring a dispute in the implementation of the order to court, which is allowed). The order also deals with payment of costs, and payments of money out of court if any money is held by the court (as these are matters which ...
The settlement includes those who received erroneous overdraft fees in their checking accounts, misapplied payments in their auto loans and even negligent foreclosure proceedings.
Settlement involves the delivery of securities from one party to another. Delivery usually takes place against payment known as delivery versus payment, but some deliveries are made without a corresponding payment (sometimes referred to as a free delivery, free of payment or FOP [4] delivery, or in the United States, delivery versus free [5]).
That is to say, a letter of credit is a payment method used to discharge the legal obligations for payment from the buyer to the seller, by having a bank pay the seller directly. Thus, the seller relies on the credit risk of the bank, rather than the buyer, to receive payment.
FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the FTC could make an antitrust challenge under the rule of reason against a so-called pay-for-delay agreement, also referred to as a reverse payment patent settlement.