Search for: "ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP" Results 1 - 20 of 180
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2024, 5:17 am by jonathanturley
It was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and has been described as “prompted by the exposure of Enron’s massive accounting fraud and revelations that the company’s outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had systematically destroyed potentially incriminating documents. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:16 am by Amy Howe
The predecessors to Section 1512(c)(1) were focused on tampering with evidence, and the law was enacted in the wake of the Enron accounting fraud scandal and the disclosure that the company’s outside auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, had destroyed documents that could be incriminating for the company. [read post]
13 Feb 2024, 9:56 am by HRWatchdog
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) — and creates a notice requirement for California employers who entered into a non-compete agreement with certain employees.Specifically, employers have until February 14, 2024, to notify any current employee, or any former employee who was employed after January 1, 2022, who signed a non-compete agreement, that the non-compete is void. [read post]
Arthur Andersen, LLP 44 Cal. 4th 937 (2008), which held that California’s existing noncompete statute, Section 16600 of the Business Professions Code, prohibits even narrowly drawn noncompetition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 12:37 pm by Sahara Pynes
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, which addressed a non-solicitation of customers provision. [read post]
26 Oct 2023, 12:37 pm by Sahara Pynes
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, which addressed a non-solicitation of customers provision. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 11:17 am by Robert B. Milligan
Arthur Andersen LLP (2008) 44 Cal.4th 937, to void the application of any noncompete agreement in an employment context, or any noncompete clause in an employment contract, no matter how narrowly tailored, that does not satisfy an exception in this chapter [read post]
11 Apr 2023, 5:01 am by Saraphin Dhanani
On April 7, in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of U.S. [read post]