Sentences with phrase «action against the defendant law»

The action against the defendant law firm was commenced in 2009.

The plaintiff's action against the defendant law firm was allowed to proceed.

The Court held that their cause of action against the defendant law firm, for allegedly providing negligent tax advice, arose when Canada Revenue disallowed their charitable tax credits, not when their litigation with Canada Revenue was settled.

Not exact matches

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 18 - cv - 02213, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired BRF American Depositary Receipts («ADRs») between April 4, 2013 and March 2, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the «Exchange Act») and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, for the District of Illinois, Eastern Division, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn's securities between March 1, 2017 through February 26, 2018, both dates inclusive (the «Class Period»), seeking to recover damages caused by defendants» violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10 (b) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b - 5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

Inc. 2014 NLTD (G) 114 Actions — Contracts — Courts — Criminal Law — Practice — Restitution — Torts — Trade Regulation Summary: The two individual plaintiffs sought to bring a class action against Atlantic Lottery Corp. (defendant), on behalf of a class of persons harmed by video lottery terminals (VLTs).

Perell J. dismissed the proposed Lipson class action claim against the defendant law firm as statute - barred.

«I am not prepared to adopt, as the defendant's argue, a blanket principle that an Ontario court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a common law action to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment against an out - of - jurisdiction judgment debtor in the absence of a showing that the defendant has some real and substantial connection to Ontario or currently possesses assets in Ontario... No jurisprudence binding on me has expressly placed a gloss on that ability to assume jurisdiction by requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the non-resident judgment debtor defendant otherwise has a real and substantial connection with Ontario.»

The case established that the ATS provides jurisdiction over tort actions in such «foreign cubed» cases, brought by non-US plaintiffs against non-US defendants for violations of customary international law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity, committed outside the US.

In fact, they can not be, since the claims in the Crown action are against different defendants and involve public, not private, law claims.»

Seven of these appeals arose out of multiple actions commenced by Mr. Van Sluytman against various defendants regarding alleged interactions with government agencies, law enforcement officials and health care professionals in various parts of Ontario.

However, the court would review the following four issues if challenged by the respondent: (1) whether the foreign court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Taiwanese laws; (2) whether a default judgment is rendered against the losing defendant, but the notice or summons of the initiation of action had been legally served in a reasonable time in the foreign country or had been served through judicial assistance provided under the Taiwanese laws; (3) whether the performance ordered by such judgment or its litigation procedure is against Taiwanese public policy or morals; and (4) whether there exists no mutual recognition between the foreign country and Taiwan.

where a default judgment is rendered against the losing defendant, except in the case where the notice or summons of the initiation of action had been legally served in a reasonable time in the foreign country or had been served through judicial assistance according to the Taiwanese laws;

A second case involves what is called a «reverse class action law suit» brought by Voltage Pictures against an as - yet unidentified group of defendants for copyright violation related to the downloading of films in which Voltage holds copyright.

Among other reasons, the panel notes that any other interpretation could create a «venue gap, where at least some alien defendants would be entirely exempt from patent infringement actions... [and] this court — without clear guidance from Congress — will not broadly upend the well - established rule that suits against alien defendants are outside the operation of the federal venue laws.»