Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In other words, if an issuer complies with the requirements of Rule 506, it can be assured that its offering is "non-public," and thus that it is exempt from registration. Rule 507 penalizes issuers who do not file the Form D, as required by Rule 503. Rule 508 provides the guidelines under which the SEC enforces Regulation D against issuers.
Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. 790, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015), is a bankruptcy law case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 1, 2015. In Caulkett, the Court held that 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) does not permit a Chapter 7 debtor to void a junior mortgage on the debtor's property [i] when the amount of the debt secured by the senior mortgage on that property exceeds the ...
In 1868, the California Legislature authorized the first of many ad hoc Code Commissions to begin the process of codifying California law. Each Code Commission was a one- or two-year temporary agency which either closed at the end of the authorized period or was reauthorized and rolled over into the next period; thus, in some years there was no ...
D. 506, the Rondo from Schubert's Piano Sonata in E minor D. 566 (Schubert) Rule D 506 , a rule of the US Securities Exchange Commission exempting certain businesses from securities regulation Topics referred to by the same term
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.
The Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) is a California statute that authorizes aggrieved employees to bring actions for civil penalties on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the State of California against their employers for California Labor Code violations. [1]
California Civil Code § 3369, enacted in 1872, was California's early unfair competition statute. It "addressed only the availability of civil remedies for business violations in cases of penalty, forfeiture, and criminal violation." [3] A 1933 amendment expanded the law to prohibit "any person [from] performing an act of unfair competition."