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 220

Petrobras Agrees to Pay More Than $1.8 Billion for Facilitating FCPA Violations
  • Holland & Knight LLP
  • USA
  • October 17 2018

Four years ago, Brazilian authorities began Operation Car Wash, a wide-ranging and still ongoing corruption and money laundering investigation that


Janus held to protect executives' internal false reportsat the direction of superiorsagainst Rule 10b-5 liability for false statements, but not against Rule 10b-5 liability for deceptive conduct
  • Locke Lord LLP
  • USA
  • September 9 2011

SEC Rule 10b-5(b), 17 CFR 240.10b-5(b), makes it unlawful for “any person, directly or indirectly to make any untrue statement of a material fact” (emphasis added) in connection with the sale or purchase of securities and implicitly provides a private right of action against a person who makes a statement that violates the rule.


SEC adopts final rules on Dodd-Frank whistleblower program
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • May 26 2011

Rules recently adopted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission define the scope and procedures of the whistleblower provisions under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.


SEC issues final rules to implement dodd-frank whistleblower provisions
  • Arent Fox LLP
  • USA
  • May 26 2011

On May 25, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted final rules by a 3-2 vote that significantly impact the role of internal corporate compliance programs.


SEC approves final rules for whistleblower program
  • Ballard Spahr LLP
  • USA
  • May 25 2011

By a 3-2 vote, the Securities and Exchange Commission today approved final rules that financially reward whistleblowers whose tips lead to successful SEC enforcement.


Outsourcing: SAS 70 superseded for service provider control reporting by SSAE 16
  • Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP
  • USA
  • May 19 2011

Prior to 2011, customers (user entities) who engaged third-party service providers (service organizations) to perform functions andor processes that impacted the user entities’ internal control over financial reporting (ICFR) typically required Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 70 Type 2 reports from service organization auditors (service auditors) that could be relied upon by the user entities’ management and auditors (user auditors) in discharging management’s responsibilities under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and assuring the effectiveness of the user entities’ ICFR.


What directors need to know about audit committees
  • Bricker & Eckler LLP
  • USA
  • April 8 2011

Audit committees began to receive more attention and focus since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002.


Focus on D&O insurance
  • Vedder Price PC
  • USA
  • March 8 2011

Virtually all D&O insurance policies contain an Insured versus Insured ("I v. I”) exclusion.


Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower provision covers employees who report fraudulent conduct or securities law violations by third parties
  • Porzio Bromberg & Newman PC
  • USA
  • February 28 2011

In a case of first impression, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley") protects employees who report fraudulent conduct or securities law violations by third parties from retaliation.


Directors' and officers' insurance policies should be reviewed in light of anticipated increase in whistleblowing activity instigated by the Dodd-Frank Act and the UK Bribery Act
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • USA, United Kingdom
  • January 5 2011

The Dodd-Frank Act contains a number of controversial provisions, but perhaps none more so than mandatory payment of a substantial bounty to individuals who provide "original information" to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) leading to fines in excess of US$1 million.