Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Section 806 of the Corporate Accounting and Auditing, Re-ponsibility and Transparency Act of 2002, commonly known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), prohibits publicly traded companies from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, retaliating against or in any other manner discriminating against their employees in the terms and conditions of employment for providing information or otherwise assisting in the investigation of conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud or violation of any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or any provision of federal law relating to fraud against shareholders. It also prohibits filing, testifying in, participating in or otherwise assisting in a proceeding filed relating to a violation of such fraud laws. Section 806 has proven to be very popular with employees; since SOX's enactment in 2002, over 300 SOX whistleblower claims have been filed.
Courts and administrative law judges have begun grappling with issues concerning the scope of SOX's whistleblower provisions in two types of situations that any U.S.-based multinational corporation might encounter: 1) where the whistleblower is located and the whistleblowing occurred outside the U.S., and 2) where the whistleblower's employer is a nonpublic subsidiary of a publicly traded company.
Whistleblowers Outside the U.S.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.