Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent corporate accounting scandals have brought to light disturbing revelations concerning the business practices of many American companies. New — and more severe — penalties for corporate fraud in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 have caused companies to step up their internal efforts to detect and prevent wrongdoing.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Analysis of the latest cases of importance to your practice.
Features
As discussed on page 1 of this newsletter, the SEC recently issued 'Standards of Professional Conduct' for attorneys representing issuers before the SEC ' a new rule mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. <i>See</i> 15 U.S.C. ' 7201 <i>et. seq.</i> The Standards clarify an attorney's 'up-the-ladder' corporate reporting responsibilities imposed by the Act. 17 C.F.R. ' 205.
They're finally here. Sort of. On January 29, 2003, the SEC issued its long-awaited, much-debated rules implementing 'Standards of Professional Conduct for Attorneys' pursuant to Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. But the rule-making process is far from over.
Features
Imagine the following scenario: The CEO of a large public company (with approximately 1 billion shares outstanding, considerably fewer than General Electric, Microsoft or General Motors) pleads guilty to a material misrepresentation in the company's financial reports, which, according to the government, when disclosed caused the company's stock to drop 50 cents per share.
Features
Recent cases of importance to your practice.
In the past few years, foreign debtors such as the Singer Company N.V. (a Netherlands Antilles corporation), Global Telesystems Europe B.V. (a Dutch corporation), Cenargo Inter- national Plc. (a British corporation), Versatel Telecom International N.V., and United Pan-Europe Communications N.V. (both Dutch corporations) have filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions in the United States. Some of these debtors were large multinationals with assets in many jurisdictions, including the U.S., but other foreign debtors in Chapter 11 have had only minimal assets in the U.S. What special considerations arise when a non-U.S. debtor with only limited assets in the U.S. files a Chapter 11 petition?
Last month's article reviewed cross-border parallel bankruptcy proceedings, and outlined various attempts to cope with the problem. This month, we discuss situations in which the U.S. court finds a real conflict between the laws of two or more countries in the treatment of creditors' claims.
Chapter 11 debtors often file motions, usually at the outset of a case, that seek to pay prepetition unsecured amounts owed to 'critical' vendors that supply debtors with essential goods and services. Debtors argue that, unless such motions are granted, vendors will cease supplying them, and thus jeopardize their ability to reorganize. Court orders that grant critical vendor motions require vendors to continue supplying debtors on specified business terms in return for payment of the prepetition amounts owed.
