Search for: "Oxley v. Oxley"
Results 641 - 660
of 1,120
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Dec 2011, 10:57 am
See also, Jones v. [read post]
16 Dec 2011, 2:00 am
For those who question whether anyone is prosecuted for this offense, see People v. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 7:51 am
Applying Stack and Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546, the judge at first instance accepted this contention, stating that he had to consider what was just and fair between the parties having regard to the whole course of dealing between them. [read post]
23 Nov 2011, 2:43 am
On September 19, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an important closely watched opinion, styled Sherman v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 8:44 am
What, if anything, was left of Smith v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 8:22 am
Jenkins made $2,091,020 in bonuses and $2,018,893 in company stock sales during that time that should have been reimbursed to CSK Auto pursuant to Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 1:42 pm
” In Centaur Partners, IV v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 12:57 pm
Supreme Court’s March ruling in Kasten v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 9:53 am
Also influencing OSHA’s decision is the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kasten v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:44 pm
Imputation involves concluding what the parties would have intended, whereas inference involves concluding what they did intend. ([126])And so, Jones v Kernott [2011] UKHL 53. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 2:51 am
Examples of the sort of evidence which might be relevant to drawing such inferences are given in Stack v Dowden, at para 69.(4) In those cases where it is clear either (a) that the parties did not intend joint tenancy at the outset, or (b) had changed their original intention, but it is not possible to ascertain by direct evidence or by inference what their actual intention was as to the shares in which they would own the property, “the answer is that each is entitled to that share… [read post]
3 Nov 2011, 5:00 am
In Sharkey v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 11:03 am
Specifically, in Menendez v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 3:35 pm
Sylvester v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 2:07 pm
Department of Labor Administrative Review Board’s blockbuster holding in Vannoy v. [read post]
14 Oct 2011, 9:23 am
A few mentions of Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, but mostly the role of regulation was ignored. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 5:44 pm
A DOL administrative law judge erred in concluding that a company’s breach of an accounting director’s confidentiality with regard to his complaint filed with the company’s audit committee was not an adverse action under Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection provisions, ruled the DOL Administrative Review Board in Menendez v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 4:10 am
In that case, the DOL's Administrative Review Board adopted a new standard governing "adverse employment actions" under Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 9:20 pm
TweetIn Vannoy v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 3:11 pm
Menendez v. [read post]
