Business & Securities Litigator Vol. 14 No. 6
- Topics:
- Commercial Litigation
- Tags:
- Article,
- Sarbanes-Oxley,
- Regulations,
- Litigation,
- Government,
- Financial Accounting,
- Finance,
- Director,
- Business Operations,
- Security
- Source:
- Weil, Gotshal & Manges
FREE Registration is required
Overview: This special presents three articles. The first article is titled “Neither A Purchaser Nor A Seller Be: The California Supreme Court Recognizes A Common Law Fraud Cause Of Action Where Stockholders Simply Hold Their Shares “. The second article is “Director Independence Standards: SEC, NYSE And NASD Rules And Proposals” and the third article is “The Second Circuit Clarifies “Inquiry Notice” For Securities Fraud Claims”. The first article says that state common law causes of action have long been treated as little more than afterthoughts on the securities fraud litigation landscape, generally perceived as being duplicative of federal securities law claims and as having little independent significance of their own. The second article asserts that the past year has seen numerous proposals by the New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., through The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., defining the term “independence” for (1) directors generally and 2) directors who serve on audit committees. The third article asserts that in enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Congress extended the one-year/threeyear statute of limitations regime for a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to two years after discovery of the facts constituting the violation or five years after the violation, whichever comes first.
(Is this item miscategorized? Does it need more tags? Let us know.)
Format: PDF | Size: 371KB | Date: Jun 2003 | Pages: 16
People who downloaded this item also downloaded
 |
Organizational Change |
 |
The Pros and Cons of Financial Holding Companies |
