Search for: "Oxley v. Oxley" Results 741 - 760 of 1,120
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jan 2011, 11:58 am by Richard Renner
Today the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) held its first oral argument in a case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 12:04 pm by Steve Bainbridge
Abstract: In 2005, Roberta Romano famously described the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as “quack corporate governance. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 4:39 pm by James Hamilton
Information must be used by PCAOB and POB according to the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the U.K. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 12:40 pm by admin
Review Bd., 514 F. 3d 468, 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying “reasonable belief” standard in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation action); Kalkunte v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 3:47 pm by admin
Review Bd., 514 F. 3d 468, 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying “reasonable belief” standard in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation action); Kalkunte v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 11:35 am by admin
Review Bd., 514 F. 3d 468, 477 (5th Cir. 2008) (applying “reasonable belief” standard in a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower retaliation action); Kalkunte v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 1:13 pm by jak4
Sullivan, “Shareholder Bylaw Proposals, Delaware Certification, and the SEC After CA, Inc. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 4:15 am by Broc Romanek
" In this order, the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia found that - in AFLAC v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 4:49 am by Broc Romanek
As I noted in this blog, the Sarbanes-Oxley fix dictated by SCOTUS was that the SEC can remove PCAOB board members at will going forward. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 9:00 am by Richard Renner
Now the Boeing Company has filed their brief arguing that media disclosures can never be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 1:59 am by Kevin LaCroix
  Following the enactment of the Sarbanes Oxley whistleblower provisions a few years ago, many D&O insurance policies were amended to ensure that a claim related to a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower action would not run afoul of the insured v. insured exclusion. [read post]