Search for: "Officer Oxley" Results 481 - 500 of 1,090
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Feb 2012, 12:54 pm by admin
 The excesses of Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Koslowski led to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in an effort to impose statutory controls on their otherwise uncontrollable behaviors. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 4:25 pm by admin
 The excesses of Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Koslowski led to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in an effort to impose statutory controls on their otherwise uncontrollable behaviors. [read post]
18 Feb 2012, 5:15 am by Richard Renner
On appeal, the Secretary of Labor and the SEC both filed amicus briefs urging the Court of Appeals to agree that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) covers Lawson and Zang. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 1:03 pm by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
 The Court explained that the clause “officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company” in the whistleblower protection provision goes to who is prohibited from retaliating or discriminating, not to who is a covered employee. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 10:03 am by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
 The Court explained that the clause “officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company” in the whistleblower protection provision goes to who is prohibited from retaliating or discriminating, not to who is a covered employee. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 1:59 pm by James Grimmelmann
Sometimes it’s plausible, as in the Sarbanes-Oxley requirement that CEOs certify corporate financial statements. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 12:37 pm by Sheppard Mullin
Feb. 3, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a case of first impression, held that the whistleblower provision in Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 12:24 pm
Feb. 3, 2012), the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in a case of first impression, held that the whistleblower provision in Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 9:35 am by William McGrath
" The Court based this upon principles of statutory interpretation and a review of the legislative history of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 9:04 am by admin
On December 22, 2011, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) issued a 3-2 en banc decision that limits the application of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) outside of the United States. [read post]
6 Feb 2012, 8:52 am
The Sarbanes-Oxley act provides legal protection for corporate whistleblowers. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 4:14 am by Robin E. Shea
The hospital told him that he could do it as long as his office was at a certain location. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 12:13 pm by David Feldman
Or at least I wish they would eliminate it in situations where the stock of the public company is not trading, or where the sole stockholder is also the sole director and officer approving the transaction. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 1:32 am by Kevin LaCroix
NERA reports that prior to 2002 (when the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was enacted) the number of settled cases that were accompanied by a parallel derivative action ranged between 11 and 22 percent a year. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 8:47 am by LaBovick Law
They also found the retaliation was a violation of the Sarbanes Oxley employee protection guarantees. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 2:12 am by Sam E. Antar
Chief Executive Officer Lawrence Blanford and Chief Financial Officer Frances Rathke received 18.8% and 15.4% respective raises in base compensation despite signing inaccurate Sarbanes-Oxley certifications claiming that adequate internal controls existed from 2007 to 2010. [read post]