Search for: "OXLEY v. STATE"
Results 501 - 520
of 653
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Jun 2010, 7:42 am
PCAOB (appointments clause challenge to Sarbanes-Oxley), and Christian Legal Society v. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 9:20 am
Black v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 3:52 pm
In Securities & Exchange Commission v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 3:46 pm
Bilski v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 5:00 am
Chapter 293 President Greg Gilman stated in February that “a great many employees expressed concerns about being ‘on call’ 24/7. [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 1:14 pm
Brock v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 7:02 am
” CTS Corp. v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 2:16 pm
They report: “Every relator we interviewed stated that the financial bounty offered under the federal statute had not motivated their participation in the qui tam lawsuit. [read post]
14 May 2010, 2:27 pm
(United States v. [read post]
7 May 2010, 10:00 pm
Paul, Rust v. [read post]
7 May 2010, 12:29 pm
LLC v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 5:00 am
If the activity is akin to whistle-blowing, then the activity could be protected under Sarbanes-Oxley or state statute. [read post]
6 May 2010, 5:00 am
If the activity is akin to whistle-blowing, then the activity could be protected under Sarbanes-Oxley or state statute. [read post]
5 May 2010, 11:40 am
Chemerisnky – United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 11:17 am
United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 6:51 am
” At Balkinization, Rick Pildes predicts that, if the Court strikes down the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Free Enterprise Fund v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 3:33 pm
United States and Weyhrauch v. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 7:33 am
., Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 6:09 am
Stockholder Proposal Dynamics: the cumulative effects of seven years of post-Sarbanes-Oxley “precatory” stockholder proposals to dismantle all semblance of corporate takeover defenses, accompanied by the specter of “withheld” or “against” votes on director nominees if directors failed to dismantle defenses following favorable stockholder vote; and, 7. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 5:00 am
Sources: Opinion in Lawson v. [read post]
