Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. was a publicly traded company. By 2005 the company's profits rose to $51.3 million. [citation needed]By 2009, Asset Acceptance Capital Corp was one of the "four largest publicly traded debt buyers" who purchased $19.6 billion in distressed debt along with Encore Capital Group, Asta Funding Inc., and Portfolio Recovery Associates.
Debt buyer (United States) A debt buyer is a company, sometimes a collection agency, a private debt collection law firm, or a private investor, that purchases delinquent or charged-off debts from a creditor or lender for a percentage of the face value of the debt based on the potential collectibility of the accounts.
31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 (a) (1) (A), 5322 (a) United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998), is a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that asset forfeiture is unconstitutional when it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant’s offense", citing the Excessive Fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. [1]
Shareholder Investigation Seeks More Money, Information for Asset Acceptance, Announces Deans & Lyons Law Firm DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Securities lawyers at Deans & Lyons are investigating the ...
If you own Asset Acceptance common stock and wish to obtain additional information, you may contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim ...
Law Firm Brower Piven Announces Investigation of Asset Acceptance Capital Corp. Proposed Acquisition STEVENSON, Md.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- The securities litigation firm of Brower Piven, A ...
United States of America v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006), [1] was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that was handed down on August 18, 2006. The form of the styling of this case—the defendant being an object, rather than a legal person —is because this is a jurisdiction in rem ...
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. [1]