Search for: "Arthur Andersen" Results 301 - 320 of 506
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 May 2017, 12:23 pm by Beth Graham
’” In re Deepwater Horizon, 579 F App’x 256, 258 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Arthur Andersen LLP v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 5:00 am by Doug Cornelius
Their only hope may be that both civil and criminal proceedings take so damn long that they’ll instead die a slow and painful death by litigation and suffocating legal fees than by the swift sword of an Arthur Andersen-type criminal indictment by the US Department of Justice. [read post]
23 Jan 2020, 4:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In Ossining, the Court of Appeals discussed its decision in Credit Alliance Corp. v Arthur Andersen & Co. (65 NY2d 536, 551 [1985], amended 66 NY2d 812 [1985]), and clarified that the three-part Credit Alliance test for negligent misrepresentation claims against non privy parties (id. at 551 [holding that the near-privity requirements include that non privy party (1) was aware the work was to be used for a particular purpose, (2) the work was prepared… [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 6:32 am
Byrnes Professor of Accounting and Auditing, Columbia Business School; Ethan Rouen, Assistant Professor of Business Administration and Faculty Co-Chair, Impact- Weighted Accounts Project at Harvard Business School; and Daniel Taylor, Arthur Andersen Professor of Accounting at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and Director of the Wharton Forensic Analytics Lab. [read post]
18 Jun 2016, 10:29 am by Walter Olson
Mike Koehler at FCPA Professor says that might help lay to rest what has been called the “Arthur Andersen effect” in which indictment is itself seen as tantamount to corporate death. [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]
1 Oct 2008, 7:39 pm
Arthur Andersen LLP, 189 P.3d. 285, 288 (2008), the Ninth Circuit stated (arguably in dicta) that noncompetition agreements in California are invalid unless necessary to protect an employer’s trade secrets. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 10:01 pm by Tom K.
District Court's ludicrous conviction of Arthur Andersen. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 3:46 pm
Arthur Andersen, a California Court of Appeal reiterated this week that contracts prohibiting former employees from soliciting customers are not enforceable, unless tied to protecting the employer’s trade secrets. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 6:00 am
., the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, which reportedly destroyed, over the course of weeks, multiple boxes of documents relevant to an investigation of Enron, and, as a result, lost such a large portion of its business that it had to lay off approximately 85,000 people); to evidence being discarded due to a business' gross disregard of its obligation to preserve it; to documents being carelessly discarded due to a business not carefully following its attorney's… [read post]
24 Mar 2008, 12:16 pm
After prosecuting Arthur Andersen out of business in the intensely anti-business, post-Enron climate, the Enron Task Force threatened to do the same to Merrill Lynch unless the firm served up some sacrificial lambs, which it did with Mr. [read post]
9 Apr 2008, 1:27 pm
 Witness the case of Arthur Andersen (actually a partnership but the same principles apply), where the company went out of business, and thousands lost their jobs, when the government insisted on prosecuting the company as well as the responsible individuals. [read post]
24 Oct 2009, 10:30 am
After a brief historical description of deodand and frankpledge, the article traces the history of corporate criminal liability from William Blackstone through Arthur Andersen. [read post]
17 Aug 2007, 5:40 am
As the Solicitor General noted: "Respondents’ alleged conduct constituted a “deceptive device or contrivance” because it not only was likely to, but allegedly did, mislead Charter’s outside accountant, Arthur Andersen, about the nature of the transactions into which respondents had entered. [read post]