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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 16,845

SEC brings lawsuit against former Carter’s executive for insider trading and tipping
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2014

On March 7, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Richard


Supreme Court broadens Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections, extends coverage to employees of a public company’s private contractors
  • Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2014

In its March 4, 2014, opinion in Lawson v. FMR LLC the Supreme Court extended the whistleblower protections of 18 U.S.C. 1514A to include not only


2 new cases temper post-Halliburton expectations
  • Carlton Fields
  • USA
  • October 30 2014

In June of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can rebut the presumption of reliance at the class certification stage of a


Supreme Court's first Sarbanes-Oxley decision promises expansion of coverage to most privately held businesses
  • Littler Mendelson PC
  • USA
  • March 6 2014

In Lawson v. FMR LLC, the Supreme Court massively expanded the scope of the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), from 4,500


Supreme Court to resolve uncertainty over time limits to bring claims in federal securities class actions
  • Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • USA
  • March 14 2014

On March 10, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS Inc., No. 13-640, to


Texas court rules that regardless of fault, CEOs and CFOs will have to pay up Under Sarbanes-Oxley Section 304
  • Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
  • USA
  • November 20 2012

A Texas federal judge denied defendants ArthoCare CEO Michael A. Baker and CFO Michael T. Gluk’s motion to dismiss the SEC’s claim against them under Sarbanes-Oxley (“SOX”) Section 304’s clawback provision


Supreme Court decides Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice
  • Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
  • USA
  • February 26 2014

On February 26, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No. 12-79, holding that the Securities Litigation


Disgorgement in an SEC action when the fund has profits but not the trader
  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • USA
  • February 26 2014

Earlier this month the Third Circuit resolved an issue regarding causation, intervening causes and disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action. SEC v


SDNY judge guts LIBOR claims on motion to dismiss, but banks are not off the hook yet
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • April 2 2013

In an exhaustive 161-page ruling issued on Friday, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the Southern District of New York dismissed the majority of the


Second Circuit limits scope of judicial review of SEC settlement agreements, clearing the way for SEC - Citigroup consent decree
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
  • USA
  • June 5 2014

In SEC v. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled yesterday that a federal district court