Definizione di United States
United States. Code (U.S.C. o U.S.Code)
United States means the United States of America including the States thereof and the District of Columbia and its possessions (including Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island and the Northern Mariana Islands).
United States. This document is not for distribution, directly or indirectly in or into the United States (as defined in Regulation S under the US Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act")).This document is not an offer of securities for sale in the United States, nor shall there be any offer of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer or sale would be unlawful. The securities described in this press release may not be sold in the United States unless they are registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") or are exempt from registration. The securities described in this press release have not been and will not be registered under the Securities Act and, accordingly, any offer or sale of Bonds may be made only in a transaction exempt from the registration requirements of the Securities Act. There will be no public offer of the securities in the United States or in any other jurisdiction
Examples of United States in a sentence
Persons into whose possession the Base Prospectus or Securities pass are obliged to inform themselves about and comply with such restrictions, in particular restrictions in connection with the distribution of the Base Prospectus and the offer or sale of Securities in the United States of America and the offer or sale of Securities in the member states of the European Economic Area (see section VI.8 on page 63 et seq.
All fees are due to us in the currency listed on an order; notwithstanding the foregoing, if an order includes fees listed in the currency of legal tender in the United States of America (“Dollars”), such fees must be paid in Dollars or their equivalent in Mexican Pesos, at the sell rate of the Dollar published by Diario Oficial de la Federación on the day prior to the date of effective payment.
All fees are due to us in the currency listed on an order; notwithstanding the foregoing, if an order includes fees listed in the currency of legal tender in the United States of America (“Dollars”), such fees must be paid in Dollars or their equivalent in Argentinian Pesos, at the sell rate of the Dollar published by Banco De La Nación Argentina on the day prior to the date of effective payment.
No payment on a Security shall be made by transfer to an account in the United States (including its possessions) or by cheque mailed to an address in the United States (including its possessions).
I/We* hereby certify that the Warrants are not being exercised by or on behalf of a U.S. person or person within the United States and the Warrants are not beneficially owned by a U.S. person or person within the United States.
More Definitions of United States
United States. Florida International University
United States. Person che detenga le Obbligazioni è soggetta alle limitazioni previste dalle norme statunitensi in La seguente legenda applicabile esclusivamente alle "United States Persons" sarà apposta sulle Obbligazioni:
United States. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ F. 3d 83, 85 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing ▇▇▇▇▇, 328 U.S. 293). The test set forth in ▇▇▇▇▇, 328 U.S. 293 (the “▇▇▇▇▇ Test”), defines an investment contract as a “contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person [1] invests his money [2] in a common enterprise and [3] is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or third party.” See id. at 298-99; see also ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 540 U.S. at 393; ▇▇▇▇▇ v. SEC Realty Corp., 18 F. 3d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1994); Indictment n. 9. All three elements of the ▇▇▇▇▇ test must be established for a scheme or transaction to qualify as an investment contract. ▇▇▇▇▇, 18F. 3d at 87. Whether a transaction or instrument qualifies as an invest- ment contract is a highly fact-specific inquiry. See, generally, ▇▇▇▇▇, 328 U.S. 293 (investment contract existed where investors bought parcels of land in citrus grove from a company for a relatively uniform purchase price, company had discretion to cultivate and harvest the crops, and inve- stors were to receive allocations of net profits); see also Marine, 455 U.S. at 560 n. 11. This is especially true in the context of “relatively new, hybrid vehicle[s],” which require “case-by-case analysis into the economic realities of the underlying transaction[s].” See ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 529 F. 3d at 88-89 (quoting Reves, 494 U.S. at 62) (internal quotation marks omitted); ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ U.S. 332, 336 (1967); see also ▇▇▇▇▇, 328 U.S. at 301 (noting the impor- tance of the “statutory policy of affording broad protection to investors”); United Hous. Found., Inc. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ U.S. 837, 847-48 (1975) (Congress “sought to define ‘the term security in sufficiently broad and general terms so as to include within that definition the many types of instruments that...fall within the ordinary concept of a security.’”) (cita- tions omitted). The question is whether the “elements of a profit-seeking business venture” are sufficiently alleged in the Indictment, such that, if proven at trial, a reasonable jury could conclude that “investors provide[d] the capital and share[d] in the earnings and profits; [and] the promoters manage[d], control[ed] and operate[d] the enterprise.” See ▇▇▇▇▇, 328 U.S. at 300.
United States. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, 09-CR-833 (E.D.N.Y. November 17, 2010) (▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇.) (instructing jury on appli- cation of ▇▇▇▇▇ test); United States ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 62 F. 3d 1425, 1995 WL 451090, at *2 (9th Cir. July 28, 1995) (unpublis- hed) (district court did not err in refusing to dismiss securities fraud counts or in instructing the jury on the definition of “investment contract”); United States ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ F. 2d 556, 562-64 (9th Cir. 1978) (upholding jury’s verdict, fin- ding that transaction at issue constituted a security, where it was supported by sufficient evidence and jury instructions included the “statutory definition of a security [] supplemen- ted with the definition of an investment contract” under ▇▇▇▇▇). Still, the Indictment alleges sufficient facts that, if proven at trial, could lead a reasonable jury to find that REcoin and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ constituted “investment contracts.”
United States. (of America) VLOP Very large online platform VLOSE Very large online search engine VSP Video-sharing platform
United States. ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇ F. 2d 556, 562-64 (9th Cir. 1978) (upholding jury’s verdict, fin- ding that transaction at issue constituted a security, where it was supported by sufficient evidence and jury instructions included the “statutory definition of a security [] supplemen- ted with the definition of an investment contract” under ▇▇▇▇▇). Still, the Indictment alleges sufficient facts that, if proven at trial, could lead a reasonable jury to find that REcoin and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ constituted “investment contracts.”
United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 317 (1919). La sentenza prevede che un produttore possa stabilire il prezzo che i distributori devono applicare e se essi si rifiutano il produttore può lecitamente non fornire più loro i beni, purché tale pratica sia attuata unilateralmente dal produttore. produttore stabilisca il prezzo e si rifiuti di vendere ai rivenditori che non si adeguano, purché il produttore agisca unilateralmente, senza l’adesione dei retailers113. La Corte distrettuale non si lascia convincere da tali argomentazioni e applica la per se rule come sancita dal risalente precedente Dr. Miles. Reputa, quindi, come illegittimo a priori il comportamento e perciò non ammette le testimonianze degli esperti e ne considera irrilevanti gli effetti. Il convenuto soccombente (i. e. ▇▇▇▇▇▇) impugna in appello davanti al Quinto Circuito la pronuncia di primo grado. Tuttavia, anche questa Corte rimane vincolata al precedente Dr. ▇▇▇▇▇ e ignora le giustificazioni pro-competitive di ▇▇▇▇▇▇. A fronte di queste valutazioni la sentenza di secondo grado è conforme a quella appellata. Allora ▇▇▇▇▇▇ decide di ricorrere alla Corte Suprema affermando di essere un produttore di modeste dimensioni (implicando di non avere quota di mercato significativa tale da produrre distorsioni del mercato) e che l’eliminazione della libera determinazione di sconti fosse una scelta pro-competitiva per tre motivi: