We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

James H. McQuade Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 11



Tenth Circuit issues its first decision interpreting SOX: offers broad reading of the act *

USA - June 11 2013
On Tuesday, June 4th, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its first decision interpreting the Sarbanes Oxley Act's whistleblower protection…

Co-authors: Joshua F. Naylor, Renee Phillips, Lisa Lupion.


California Supreme Court allows See’s Candy time rounding decision to stand *

USA - March 4 2013
Earlier last month, the California Supreme Court denied petitions to review and depublish the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District’s…

Co-authors: Lauri A. Damrell , Craig Wickersham .


Supreme Court reaffirms enforceability of arbitration agreement in noncompetition dispute *

USA - December 11 2012
In a succinct opinion issued on November 26, 2012, the Supreme Court delivered a stern warning to state courts that fail to enforce arbitration clauses accompanying noncompetition agreements.

Co-authors: Devin Slack.


Federal court decisions permit two Dodd-Frank whistleblower cases to proceed *

USA - October 11 2012
Two federal district courts recently issued decisions adopting a broad interpretation of the anti-retaliation provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) and allowed Dodd-Frank whistleblower claims to proceed past motions to dismiss.

Co-authors: Renee Phillips, Mike Delikat.


U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether class action plaintiffs can use stipulations to avoid jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act *

USA - September 25 2012
The United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari to review whether class action plaintiffs can avoid federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) by stipulating that their damages do not exceed the federal jurisdictional prerequisite.

Co-authors: Lena P. Ryan , Sara E. Dionne .


Next »