Search for: "Oxley v. Oxley"
Results 221 - 240
of 1,106
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jul 2022, 5:07 am
The SEC Historical Society panelists noted some of the lasting results of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 6:42 am
Her Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower claim was also dismissed, and a third claim must be arbitrated (Wiggins v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 2:22 pm
Wadler v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 7:11 pm
Perez, Dept. of Labor (10th Cir., May 29, 2015) (denying petition for review of Sarbanes-Oxley claim) [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 2:58 pm
The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal in Oxley v. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 4:31 am
” However, in its March 4, 2014 holding in Lawson v. [read post]
29 Oct 2012, 9:47 am
(Bennett v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 9:01 pm
The decision in Murray v. [read post]
4 May 2023, 11:16 am
Schutte v. [read post]
25 Feb 2009, 10:00 pm
Day v. [read post]
15 Aug 2009, 5:09 pm
In Van Arsdale v. [read post]
21 Jul 2010, 4:56 pm
Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 3:07 pm
Many have noted that the decision—striking down a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) that provided PCAOB members could only be removed for cause—will have little practical effect in the business world (the Wall Street Journal quotes Office Max’s CFO going so far as to say “[w]hat happens as a consequence of the rulings today is frankly not important”). [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 8:31 am
New York [v. [read post]
Scope of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Anti-Retaliation Provision Remains Critical, Open Question (Video)
14 Jul 2015, 12:39 pm
On June 17, 2015, the Second Circuit heard oral arguments on this issue in Berman v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 12:11 pm
In Stone v. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 1:12 pm
That’s the Supreme Court of the United States, in Yates v. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 5:00 am
In Sylvester v. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 8:42 am
Rather than follow Asadi v. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 1:11 pm
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which concerns whether a major provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is consistent with the principle of separation of powers; Graham v. [read post]
