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 125

The SEC continues its strict liability approach to SOX 304
  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • USA
  • September 7 2011

The Commission continues to pursue its strict liability policy regarding the application of Section 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act.

Notable Arizona tax legislation enacted in 2011
  • Quarles & Brady LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Arizona’s Fiftieth Legislature adjourned on April 20, 2011 without setting a date to reassemble.

Arizona House panel passes law to stop “consumer incentive” meal restrictions
  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • USA
  • March 4 2011

The Arizona House of Representatives Commerce Committee has reportedly approved a bill (H.B. 2490) that would block cities and counties from enacting laws that would prohibit restaurants, food establishments or convenience stores from offering “consumer incentive items” with meals.

Ninth Circuit repudiates DOL reading of FLSA’s “outside sales” exemption
  • Sherman & Howard LLC
  • USA
  • March 3 2011

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, has ruled that Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives (PSRs) who visit physicians and urge them to prescribe the prescription drugs of their employers, where appropriate, are within the "outside sales" exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and therefore not entitled to overtime pay.

New website compiles Arizona solar energy information
  • Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
  • USA
  • September 8 2010

The Arizona Corporation Commission announced last week the official launch of the Arizona Goes Solar website, a one-stop resource for Arizona consumers and businesses looking for information about solar projects going on around the state and available incentives for adoption of solar energy technology.

Officers may need to reimburse payments received during periods later restated
  • Herrick Feinstein LLP
  • USA
  • August 18 2010

Companies should carefully consider the effect that issuing a financial restatement will have on their CEOs and CFOs.

SEC can seek bonuses of “innocent” CEOs
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • June 18 2010

The Securities and Exchange Commission does not have to allege that the chief executive officer (CEO) or the chief financial officer (CFO) of a public company engaged in malfeasance in order for the agency to seek reimbursement to the issuer of bonuses paid to the CEO if wrongful conduct results in a restatement, an Arizona federal court ruled.

SEC v. Jenkins: SOX 304 clawback requires innocent CEOs and CFOs to return incentive-based compensation if the company restates its financials due to “misconduct”
  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • USA
  • June 16 2010

In a case of first impression, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona recently ruled that Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX"), the so-called "Clawback Provision," does not require personal misconduct by a company's CEO or CFO to trigger reimbursement obligations after an accounting restatement.

Arizona federal district court holds that Securities & Exchange Commission need not allege wrongdoing on the part of CEO when pursuing reimbursement under Section 304 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • USA
  • June 15 2010

In Securities & Exchange Commission v Jenkins, No CV-09-1510-PHX-GMS, 2010 WL 2347020 (D Ariz Jun 9, 2010), the United States District Court for the District of Arizona held that the responsibility of a CEO under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the "Act") to reimburse an issuer for bonuses, incentive compensation and stock sale proceeds he or she received in the year prior to a restatement of the issuer's financial statements does not require a showing that CEO committed or even knew of misconduct that led to the restatement.

SEC seeks return of CEO profits under SOX 304 clawback provision
  • Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP
  • USA
  • July 24 2009

The Securities and Exchange Commission recently filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Maynard Jenkins, former CEO of CSK Auto Corp. (CSK), alleging violations of section 304 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX).