The recent and seemingly endless series of high-profile corporate scandals and failures has caused the investing public and regulatory authorities to become increasingly concerned about corporate governance and financial disclosure. The congressional response to this concern, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act) contains, among many other provisions, significant enhancements to the responsibilities of audit committees. As a result of the Act, audit committees can no longer be rubber-stamping "yes-men" in corporate governance. They must now meet specific qualifications of financial literacy and independence, and exercise reasonable diligence and good faith judgment in the monitoring of management, and internal and external auditors. If they do not, they could subject the company and themselves to shareholder lawsuits and the company to SEC actions and/or being de-listed by their respective exchange. The provisions of the Act that directly affect audit committees are presented by title and section and discussed in this article.
J. Duross O'BryanKelly L. MellePart One of a Two-Part Article
The recent and seemingly endless series of high-profile corporate scandals and failures has caused the investing public and regulatory authorities to become increasingly concerned about corporate governance and financial disclosure.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
An annual tradition continues as we present the responses to our Legalweek question. For 2026, it was "where are we with prompting"?
The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.
In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features, they choose on trust. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.
The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.
