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 521

“Final order” in Supreme Court mutual fund fee case: more lessons for fund boards
  • Foley & Lardner LLP
  • USA
  • July 31 2015

Having decided Jones v. Harris 559 U.S. 335, 346 (2010), the US Supreme Court sent the case back to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for application


Supreme Court ruling in 401(k) fee case extends statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claim
  • Day Pitney LLP
  • USA
  • June 9 2015

On May 18, 2015, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Tibble v. Edison International that in addition to the fiduciary duty to


U.S. Supreme Court’s first decision on SOX extends coverage to employees of contractors of publicly traded companies
  • Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • USA
  • June 11 2014

In Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held that the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


First Supreme Court SOX decision extends whistleblower coverage
  • Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
  • USA
  • June 4 2014

The Supreme Court recently held that the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (SOX) extends to employees of contractors of public


Private employers now face Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections
  • Dorsey & Whitney LLP
  • USA
  • March 7 2014

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling that dramatically expands the reach of whistleblower protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley


SCOTUS: Lawson, et al. v. FMR LLC, et al.: SOX whistleblower protections cover employees of private contractors of public companies
  • Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
  • USA
  • March 6 2014

In Lawson, et al. v. FMR LLC, et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that the anti-retaliation whistleblower protections of the


Optionally fully convertible debentures whether securities or not
  • Singh & Associates
  • India
  • June 21 2013

The Supreme Court on 31st August, 2012 in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited ('SIRECL') and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited


Government enforcement actions: Supreme Court holds “Discovery Rule” does not apply to general federal statute of limitations for government enforcement actions seeking civil penalties
  • Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
  • USA
  • February 27 2013

On February 27, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the five-year statute of limitations for Securities and Exchange Commission


Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders: Supreme Court rules regarding liability of secondary actors
  • Vedder Price PC
  • USA
  • October 18 2011

On June 13, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. ___ (2011


Supreme Court redefines “makers” of untrue statements as those with ultimate authority
  • Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2011

The Supreme Court’s decision in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 131 S. Ct. 2296 at 2302 (2011), in the final weeks of the 2010-2011 term, turned on the meaning of a single word