Podcasts about sarbanes oxley act

“I retired from corporate America in my early 30's, after a short but very successful career when I became a corporate whistle blower in 2004 (under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act) and representing myself in court. Once you come face to face with some major flaws of our society, you can't un-see such flaws, and I felt compelled to learn about how to resolve the injustice I witnessed. Since then, I have dedicated my time and invested my efforts to collecting the best and rarest artifacts and evidence which illustrate this ongoing corruption of justice – whereby I then create and develop solutions to provide individuals with Cognitive Liberty. I teach Intellectual Self-Defense, Methods for Critical Thinking and Creative Problem Solving skill sets to autodidacts (those who have the desire for self-learning). As I widened my perspectives, I discovered a stream of systematic control systems permeating our society – within that stream there is a current of corruption adversely affecting hard-working folks in the middle and lower classes. People are being dumbed-down, and the thieves of freedom are plundering the production of those who are too ill-informed to protect themselves intellectually from such schemes. I see Freedom as being composed of three primary ingredients: Non-Aggression, Physical Self-Defense, and Intellectual Self-Defense, and I create media to educate and inform those who seek to understand how our world really works.” – Richard GroveCheck Richard's work here:https://grandtheftworld.com/https://tragedyandhope.com/Go to:https://voluntaryistacademy.com/Support the show:https://voluntaryistacademy.com/donate/https://onegreatworknetwork.com/james-cordiner/donate/Buy a Shirt:https://voluntaryistacademy.creator-spring.com/Get AUTONOMY: https://getautonomy.info/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.universityofreason.com%2Fa%2F2147825829%2F8sRCwZLdMusical Artist: Brendan Danielhttps://www.instagram.com/brendandanielmusic/

With guests Raoul Montgomery, Kirsty Crean, and Brian CheungAs the theme of this episode is compliance, we first hear from Raoul Montgomery and Kirsty Crean of executive search and recruitment firm Arion House in Hong Kong about hiring trends in the legal and compliance space post-Chinese New Year. Hiring in Compliance & Legal: What's Driving the Surge in 2025? Raoul & Kirsty share the areas in which the financial sector is hiring – with insurance and crypto-compliance being key drivers for of employment. Kirsty and Raoul also share their thoughts on the degree to which firms are hiring legal and compliance staff at more senior levels versus more middle to junior ranks. Indications are that some banking and financial institutions and multinational corporations more broadly are moving more towards retainment mode. That is evidenced by the hiring freezes at some banks in the region. The conversation concludes with what it takes to be a good compliance officer – beyond just knowing the rules, regulations and general knowledge of the sector one seeks employment in. As our guests make clear that while a legal or accounting degree and/or experience will always put one in good stead, in-house/general counsel and compliance officers need soft skills, too.  Inside Compliance: Balancing Risk, Regulation & Work-Life. Our discussion with Brian Yeung of Interactive Brokers delves into why he pursued a law degree. He also describes how he saw himself making a difference by becoming a compliance officer which, he recalls, occurred against the backdrop of the 2001 Enron scandal leading to the collapse of venerable accounting giant Arthur Anderson, the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (2002) in the US – which forever put a global spotlight on the importance of good corporate governance and the compliance profession writ large. It is a profession that Brian took well to; one he still finds years later to be incredibly stimulating and rewarding. As he avers “There is no typical day for me.” While sharing what his biggest challenges are, Brian stresses the importance of work life balance and considers himself profoundly blessed to usually be able to leave at a reasonable hour each day to spend time with his family after a long day at the office. He contrasts that with the life he might have had as a solicitor in private practice where the perpetual dread to rack up enough bllliable hours annually would likely have impacted his family life, notwithstanding the potentially higher rewards and prestige. While acknowledging that the compliance has long been associated with the legal and accounting professions, he does not believe one necessarily needs to complete a degree in either of those subjects to have a successful compliance career, what that although a law degree can be useful, an investigative mind is also a valuable asset to those considering entering the field. The Regulatory Ramblings podcast is brought to you by The University of Hong Kong's Reg/Tech Lab (Building Better Financial Systems), HKU-SCF FinTech Academy, Asia Global Institute, and HKU-edX Professional Certificate in FinTech, with support from HKU Law. The program is led by Douglas Arner and hosted by Ajay Shamdasani. For more details and links, please visit: www.hkufintech.com/regulatoryramblingsHKU FinTech is the leading fintech research and education in Asia. Learn more at www.hkufintech.com.

There is a long history of regulation and deregulation where big scandals provide the catalyst for new rules, and then the realization that the rules are possibly excessive has caused them to be rolled back. In finance the 1933 Glass-Steagall provisions came in the wake of the 1929 Crash. The 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a reaction to the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Dodd-Frank was enacted in 2010 after the 2008 financial crisis. Good regulation can bring all sorts of benefits, but excessive regulation, does little to serve the public interest, and creates financial costs and frustration for businesses and the public. Elon Musk has vowed to dismantle thousands of federal regulations as the co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, saying the nation's financial security depends on it. Is he right, and if so, what rules need to go first? Patrick's Books: Statistics For The Trading Floor: https://amzn.to/3eerLA0 Derivatives For The Trading Floor: https://amzn.to/3cjsyPF Corporate Finance: https://amzn.to/3fn3rvC Ways To Support The Channel: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleOnFinance Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/patrickboyle Visit our website: https://www.onfinance.org Follow Patrick on Twitter Here: https://twitter.com/PatrickEBoyle Business Inquiries ➡️ sponsors@onfinance.org Additional Reading: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/brief-history-regulation-and-deregulation An Evaluation of Consumer Protection Legislation: The 1962 Drug Amendments | Journal of Political Economy: Vol 81, No 5 https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/jones-act-burden-america-can-no-longer-bear#conclusion https://worksinprogress.co/issue/how-madrid-built-its-metro-cheaply/ Milton Friedman Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZL25NSLhEA A history of regulation and deregulation: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/brief-history-regulation-and-deregulation Weird Laws Around the World: https://www.farandwide.com/s/weird-laws-world-4961c1ede8d749bf

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!Are whistleblowers the unsung heroes of corporate accountability? In our latest episode, we promise to unravel the transformative impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Murray v UBS Securities LLC. This pivotal ruling from February 2024 marks a seismic shift, as whistleblowers no longer need to prove retaliatory intent under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We guide you through the implications of this landmark change, exploring how it empowers those who speak up against corporate fraud by only requiring proof that their whistleblowing was a contributing factor to negative treatment. Companies now face the challenge of proving their actions against whistleblowers are justified and unrelated, adding a new layer of accountability.We also have an engaging conversation about the broader repercussions on corporate culture. Discover why fostering environments where ethical behavior is celebrated and whistleblowers are valued as guardians of integrity is more crucial than ever. We offer practical advice for potential whistleblowers, from documenting misconduct to seeking expert legal guidance, while acknowledging the emotional and financial hurdles they might encounter. This episode underscores the need for organizations to genuinely embrace ethical practices, moving beyond mere legal compliance, and showcases the courage required for individuals to step into the spotlight despite potential risks. Join us in this essential dialogue about reshaping corporate ethics and accountability. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does 18 U-S-C § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that to prove a violation of 18 U-S-C §1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The Court focused on interpreting the scope of 18 U-S-C §1512(c)(2), particularly how it relates to §1512(c)(1). Applying the canons of statutory interpretation, particularly noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, the “otherwise” clause in (c)(2) should be read as limited by the specific conduct described in (c)(1). If (c)(2) were as broad as the government claimed, it would render (c)(1) and many other specific obstruction statutes superfluous, which goes against principles of statutory interpretation. Next, as to the historical context of the statute, it was enacted as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to address specific issues like document shredding in the Enron scandal. An overly broad interpretation of (c)(2) would criminalize a wide range of prosaic conduct and give prosecutors too much discretion. Moreover, the Court traditionally avoids broad interpretations of obstruction statutes that would create “coverall” provisions. Finally, the Court concluded that (c)(2) should be interpreted more narrowly, in light of (c)(1), to primarily cover acts that impair the integrity or availability of evidence for use in an official proceeding, rather than all forms of obstruction. This interpretation better respects Congress's role in defining crimes and setting penalties and avoids potential constitutional issues arising from an overly broad criminal statute. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

This episode provides a comprehensive examination of the rise and fall of Enron, detailing its transformation from a modest gas pipeline firm to an energy behemoth. It delves into the mergers that propelled its growth, the deceptive accounting practices like mark-to-market accounting, and the use of Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) to obscure financial realities. It also covers Enron's role in the California energy crisis, its political clout, and the unraveling led by whistleblower Sharon Watkins and ensuing SEC investigations. The discussion extends to the broader implications of Enron's collapse, emphasizing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's role in corporate reform, the need for a cultural shift towards transparency, and the enduring need for individual vigilance and accountability to prevent future corporate fraud.Tom and Simon will discuss this and the rest of this weeks episode's in this Sunday's episode.00:00 Introduction to Enron Scandal00:35 Enron's Humble Beginnings01:18 Rise to Power: Key Mergers01:55 The Illusion of Success02:21 Questionable Practices: Mark to Market Accounting03:29 Special Purpose Entities and Deception04:32 The California Energy Crisis05:21 Political Connections and Regulatory Capture05:51 The Whistleblower and SEC Investigation06:08 Enron's Financial Collapse06:33 Impact on Employees and Investors06:50 Legal Consequences for Enron Executives07:11 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Explained07:41 Lessons from Enron's Downfall08:04 Future of Corporate Ethics and Accountability09:34 The Human Element in Corporate Responsibility10:47 Final Thoughts on Enron's Legacy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Murray v UBS Securities, LLC. In this case, the court considered this issue: Under 18 U-S-C § 1514A, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief? The case was decided on February 8, 2024. The Supreme Court held that a whistleblower who invokes §1514A must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer's unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 includes a provision that protects whistleblowers, explicitly prohibiting employers from engaging in retaliation, such as firing, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or discriminating in any way against an employee's employment conditions “because of” the employee's engagement in protected whistleblowing activities. A whistleblower must first demonstrate that their whistleblowing was a significant factor in the alleged adverse employment action, and then the burden shifts to the employer, who must prove that they would have made the same adverse employment decision regardless of the whistleblower's actions. First, the word “discriminate” in the statute does not inherently require “retaliatory intent,” which refers to animus or prejudice. Further, to require a whistleblower to prove “retaliatory intent,” as UBS argues, would ignore the statute's mandatory burden-shifting framework. Contrary to UBS's contention, innocent employers will not face liability for legitimate, nonretaliatory personnel decisions. The burden-shifting framework precludes that outcome. Thus, A whistleblower who invokes 18 U-S-C § 1514A must prove only that his protected activity “was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.” Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined, reiterating the Court's rejection of the “animus” requirement does not eliminate the intent requirement of the statute. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this installment of the Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, Frank Davis (shareholder, Dallas) and John Surma (shareholder, Houston) discuss OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program through which OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions of 25 federal statutes, including the OSH Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. John and Frank discuss the investigation process, standards of liability, burdens of proof, and settlement agreements. They also provide practical pointers on documentation and various methods of communication with OSHA.

Fischer v. United States concerned whether to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) — a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted […]

Fischer v. United States concerned whether to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) — a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — the government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.Petitioners in the case were Joseph Fischer, Edward Lang, and Garret Miller, who were involved with the events of January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol. Based on their actions that day they were charged with a variety of charges including one count of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding under 18 U.S.C. §1512(c)(2). Appellees did not contest the other charges but moved to dismiss the charge mentioned above, arguing §1512 (c) is ambiguous concerning (c)(2) and (c)(1). The district court agreed. Upon appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court granted cert and heard oral arguments on April 16, 2024. A 6-3 Court, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority, released its opinion on June 28, 2024. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion and Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:Theodore Cooperstein, Appellate Counsel, Theodore Cooperstein PLLC

This Day in Legal History: Lizzie Borden AcquittedOn June 20, 1893, in New Bedford, Massachusetts, Lizzie Borden was acquitted of the notorious axe murders of her father, Andrew Borden, and stepmother, Abby Borden. The trial had gripped the nation, with its sensational details and the prominent social standing of the Borden family. On the morning of August 4, 1892, Andrew and Abby were found brutally slain in their Fall River home, each having suffered multiple axe wounds. Lizzie, the prime suspect, was arrested and charged with their murders.The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including Lizzie's alleged attempts to purchase prussic acid, her burning of a dress similar to the one she was seen wearing on the day of the murders, and conflicting statements about her whereabouts. Despite this, the defense argued there was no physical evidence directly linking Lizzie to the crime, and her reputation as a church-going, unmarried woman was emphasized to cast doubt on her guilt. The jury deliberated for less than two hours before returning a verdict of not guilty.Lizzie Borden's acquittal remains one of the most controversial and debated decisions in American legal history. The case has inspired numerous books, films, and even a popular rhyme, embedding Lizzie Borden in American folklore. The legal proceedings highlighted the limitations of forensic science at the time and underscored the significant role of societal perceptions in the courtroom.U.S. accounting firms are pushing back against proposals for stricter reporting rules on their finances, operations, and audit performance, labeling them as overly rigid and costly. They prefer to keep reporting major business changes and financial results as part of routine inspections to protect sensitive information. Firms advocate for voluntary transparency reports over standardized forms for discussing audit management and staffing.The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) introduced draft rules in April requiring firms to submit formal financial statements, details on ownership and governance, and business changes. These rules aim to meet investor demands for more auditor insights and codify existing practices, as firms already provide significant details during PCAOB inspections. Firms, structured as private partnerships, oppose adhering to U.S. GAAP or international standards for compiling their financial statements, arguing it would divert resources for an unnecessary set of records. They also question the PCAOB's authority under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to demand such detailed disclosures.While the PCAOB's Investor Advisory Group supports making these financial statements public and audited, audit firms argue this could compromise audit quality and mislead investors due to varying client portfolios. Progressive organizations and labor unions back the proposal, emphasizing that detailed reporting would enhance competition and audit quality.Auditors Pan Bid to Report Their Own Financials as Too RigidBig Tech is shifting artificial intelligence (AI) from the cloud to users' personal devices, aiming to enhance privacy and performance. Apple introduced "Apple Intelligence," a generative AI assistant that operates directly on devices, claiming it sets a new privacy standard. Microsoft followed with Copilot+ PCs, which include locally running AI models. This move, supported by Qualcomm, highlights the trend of on-device processing, which reduces latency, cost, and privacy concerns associated with cloud-based solutions.On-device AI aims to protect user data by keeping it on personal devices, thus eliminating risks associated with transmitting data to and from the cloud. However, challenges remain, such as ensuring these local models do not expose sensitive data or produce inaccurate outputs. Experts caution that while on-device AI enhances privacy, it does not eliminate all risks.The approach is particularly appealing to organizations handling confidential information. Running AI locally means data stays on the device, reducing the risk of exposure during transmission. Despite these benefits, core privacy challenges persist, especially in automated decision-making scenarios like HR processes. Companies must address the cybersecurity implications of hosting substantial data locally.Tech providers, including Apple and Nvidia, note that running AI on devices involves trade-offs, primarily related to the size and capability of models. Large models like OpenAI's GPT-4 are too big for individual devices, requiring compression techniques that might limit their functionality. Consequently, some complex tasks may still need cloud support.The shift to on-device AI represents a significant change from the cloud-centric trend of recent years. Organizations adopting this hybrid approach must adapt their AI governance, ensuring they understand and manage the new dynamics of data processing and security on personal devices.Big Tech Pushing On-Device AI as Privacy, Performance BoosterOn June 19, relatives of victims from two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes urged the U.S. Justice Department to impose a fine of up to $24.78 billion on Boeing and pursue criminal prosecution. The crashes in 2018 and 2019 resulted in 346 deaths, making it one of the deadliest corporate crimes in U.S. history, according to lawyer Paul Cassel. The families suggested suspending $14 billion to $22 billion of the fine if Boeing allocates those funds to an independent corporate monitor and compliance improvements.The Justice Department had previously determined that Boeing violated a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement, which shielded the company from a conspiracy to commit fraud charge related to the crashes. Despite Boeing's claim that it did not violate the agreement, federal prosecutors must decide by July 7 whether to proceed with a criminal case or negotiate a plea deal. An extension of the deferred prosecution agreement is also an option.The violation was confirmed after an incident involving an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 on January 5, exposing ongoing safety and quality issues at Boeing. The families also called for Boeing's board of directors to meet with them and for criminal prosecutions of corporate officials responsible at the time of the crashes.Senator Richard Blumenthal, chair of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, supported the call for prosecution, citing overwhelming evidence. The two crashes, linked to a safety system called MCAS, led to a 20-month worldwide grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX.Families of Boeing 737 MAX crash victims ask US to seek $24 billion fine | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Welcome to another episode of The Jeffers Brief, hosted by John Jeffers on Contra Radio Network. In this episode, John dives into the controversies surrounding the Trump trial, highlighting the judge's conduct and drawing historical parallels. He provides his take on the potential trade-off between Trump and Hunter Biden's jail time, and critiques both the Republican and Democrat parties' approaches to political battles. John also discusses the mainstream media's bias, specifically targeting George Stephanopoulos and the narrative engineering around the Trump trial. He touches on the implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and its application to January 6th defendants, and speculates on the potential outcomes of upcoming Supreme Court rulings. Additionally, John shares updates on the Trump campaign's social media success and fundraising efforts, and introduces a new company joining Contra Radio Network, emphasizing its relevance to preppers. He also covers various news highlights, from Fauci's grilling on COVID origins to the Washington Post's leadership changes, and wraps up with a few pointed comments on current events. Join John Jeffers for an unfiltered discussion on the latest political and social issues, only on The Jeffers Brief.

Welcome to another episode of The Jeffers Brief, hosted by John Jeffers on Contra Radio Network. In this episode, John dives into the controversies surrounding the Trump trial, highlighting the judge's conduct and drawing historical parallels. He provides his take on the potential trade-off between Trump and Hunter Biden's jail time, and critiques both the Republican and Democrat parties' approaches to political battles. John also discusses the mainstream media's bias, specifically targeting George Stephanopoulos and the narrative engineering around the Trump trial. He touches on the implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and its application to January 6th defendants, and speculates on the potential outcomes of upcoming Supreme Court rulings. Additionally, John shares updates on the Trump campaign's social media success and fundraising efforts, and introduces a new company joining Contra Radio Network, emphasizing its relevance to preppers. He also covers various news highlights, from Fauci's grilling on COVID origins to the Washington Post's leadership changes, and wraps up with a few pointed comments on current events. Join John Jeffers for an unfiltered discussion on the latest political and social issues, only on The Jeffers Brief. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/contra-radio-network/support

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has nothing to do with the events of January 6. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

This Day in Legal History: WWI German Use of Chemical Weapons on Canadian TroopsOn April 24, 1915, during the Second Battle of Ypres in World War I, German forces launched one of the first large-scale chemical weapon attacks in history. This attack targeted Canadian troops stationed near the town of Ypres in Belgium. The Germans released chlorine gas, which spread over the Allied trenches, causing widespread injury and death. This marked a grim milestone in the use of modern chemical warfare. Initially unprepared for such a method of warfare, the Allies soon developed their own chemical weapons and retaliatory tactics. British and French forces began incorporating gas warfare into their strategies, leading to an escalation of chemical weapon use on all sides. The devastating effects of gas attacks during World War I highlighted the urgent need for regulation. Efforts to ban the use of chemical weapons gained momentum after the war. One significant advocate for such measures was the International Committee of the Red Cross, which pushed for international agreements to prohibit chemical warfare. Their advocacy was crucial in shaping public and political opinion on the issue.This advocacy culminated in the drafting of the Geneva Protocol in 1925. Formally known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, this treaty marked a significant step forward in international law. Signed on June 17, 1925, the protocol was initially signed by 38 countries. The Protocol prohibited the use of asphyxiating, poisonous gases, and bacteriological methods of warfare in conflicts. Despite its limitations—such as not restricting the production, storage, or transfer of these weapons—it represented a key milestone in the efforts to control and eventually eliminate the use of chemical weapons in conflicts. This agreement laid the groundwork for later treaties that aimed to further control or eradicate weapons of mass destruction.Boeing Co. executives Dave Calhoun and Stan Deal are set to retire with substantial compensation packages totaling approximately $45 million, despite their tenure overlapping with significant manufacturing issues in the 737 series jets. This substantial payout is possible because they are retiring rather than being dismissed, allowing them to avoid the company's clawback policy which could have otherwise enabled Boeing to reclaim some of their earnings due to negligence or misconduct. Their strategic retirement comes at a time when Boeing is under heavy scrutiny following a safety incident involving a 737 Max 9, which led to a 32% drop in the company's share prices and raised serious quality concerns among stakeholders.In response to these quality issues, Boeing shareholders are expected to approve new compensation guidelines that tie executive pay more closely to safety and operational performance. This policy change follows a leadership reshuffle initiated two months after the incident, signaling a concerted effort to pivot towards stringent safety measures. The new policy is a shift from the previous model, where operational performance was less significantly weighted compared to financial metrics.The existing clawback policy at Boeing allows for the recovery of incentive-based compensation in cases of misconduct or negligence that impacts the company's product safety. However, this policy requires significant misconduct for activation, which has not been pursued in the case of Calhoun and Deal according to the latest reports.An element of law relevant here is the clawback provision under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, enhanced by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. These laws were designed to improve corporate governance and accountability, especially in the wake of financial scandals. Under these regulations, public companies can reclaim executive compensation in the event of misconduct that leads to financial restatements or significant failures in corporate governance. This legislative framework is crucial for understanding how companies like Boeing create and enforce policies meant to ensure executive accountability, especially in situations impacting public safety and investor interests. Boeing Leaders' Windfall Predates New Safety Goals Tied to PayBoeing to face questions on potential CEO candidates, Spirit talks | ReutersThe U.S. Senate has passed a bill requiring ByteDance, the Chinese owner of TikTok, to divest its U.S. operations within nine months or face a nationwide ban. President Joe Biden intends to sign the bill, initiating a 270-day period for ByteDance to complete the sale, potentially extendable by 90 days. If no sale occurs by then, the fate of TikTok could depend on the incoming U.S. president after the January 2025 inauguration.Once the law is enacted, TikTok is expected to file a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality and seek a preliminary injunction to prevent the law's enforcement while the case is considered. This legal strategy mirrors TikTok's successful efforts in Montana, where it obtained an injunction against a state-level ban.If TikTok secures a preliminary injunction, the sale could be delayed, allowing TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. during the legal proceedings. This situation recalls previous attempts by the Trump administration to ban TikTok and WeChat, which were thwarted by legal challenges, leading to Biden rescinding those orders in 2021.The outcome of this legislation and TikTok's legal challenges could significantly impact its 170 million U.S. users, although no immediate changes to the app are expected until the divestment period concludes in early 2025.Regarding international considerations, the divestment of TikTok might require approval from the Chinese government due to export controls on certain technologies, including TikTok's recommendation algorithm.TikTok ban: What happens next after US Senate passed the bill? | ReutersThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has adopted a comprehensive ban on non-compete clauses, which are contractual agreements that limit employees' ability to switch jobs within their industry. This decision, prompted by an executive order from President Biden three years ago, aims to mitigate the restrictions that roughly 20% of U.S. workers face due to such clauses. FTC Chair Lina Khan highlighted that this rule is about protecting economic liberty and dismissed claims that the FTC lacks the authority to enforce such regulations.The new rule, passed with a 3-2 vote, will prohibit most new non-compete agreements, including those for senior executives. However, pre-existing agreements for high-earning executives in policymaking positions will remain unaffected. Lower-level employees' existing non-compete agreements will become void six months after the rule is implemented, potentially boosting U.S. earnings by over $400 billion in the next decade. This rule excludes employees of non-profits and franchises.The rule has significant support from labor organizations like AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union, as well as Democratic senators and attorneys general from various states. The public largely favors the ban, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority of supportive comments received during the FTC's consultation period.Opposition comes from business groups and some FTC members who argue that the rule is too broad and infringes on companies' rights to protect confidential information. Critics, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argue that the FTC oversteps its regulatory bounds and threatens economic micromanagement. This has sparked promises of legal challenges against the rule's enforcement.The key debate here is over the FTC's rulemaking authority. This aspect is crucial because it underpins the entire legal challenge likely to follow. Opponents argue the FTC lacks the explicit congressional authorization needed to enact such broad economic regulations, a point of contention that echoes recent Supreme Court skepticism towards perceived agency overreach. This legal argument could significantly influence the rule's future and its impact on American labor markets.FTC Issues Worker Non-Compete Ban as Chamber Lawsuit Looms (2)U.S. bans noncompete agreements for nearly all jobsChangpeng Zhao, the founder of Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, is facing a proposed sentence of 36 months in prison after pleading guilty to charges related to money laundering violations. U.S. prosecutors have made this recommendation due to the severity of Zhao's infractions, emphasizing that his actions knowingly violated U.S. laws. Although federal guidelines suggest a maximum of 18 months for such offenses, the prosecution argues for a longer sentence given the case's circumstances.Zhao resigned as CEO of Binance in November following his and the company's admission of these violations, resulting in a staggering penalty of $4.32 billion for Binance. This penalty includes a $1.81 billion criminal fine and $2.51 billion in restitution. Additionally, Zhao has agreed to a personal fine of $50 million and to sever all ties with Binance, which he originally founded in 2017.Binance itself was found to have failed in reporting over 100,000 transactions suspected of being linked to terrorist groups such as Hamas, al Qaeda, and ISIS. Furthermore, the platform was implicated in facilitating the sale of child sexual abuse materials and processing a significant amount of ransomware payments.Zhao, who is out on a $175 million bond in the U.S., has consented to these penalties and has opted not to appeal any sentence up to 18 months. His sentencing is scheduled for April 30 in Seattle.US seeks 36 months' jail for Binance founder Zhao | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court hears an appeal from a former Pennsylvania cop, who says his conduct at the Capitol on Jan. 6 does not qualify as obstruction under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Prosecutors have charged more than 300 people using that law, but are they stretching it too far? Plus, the Justices rule that a local $23,420 permitting fee is covered by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has nothing to do with the events of January 6. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

Professor Easha Anand, co-director of the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, joins Professors Pam Karlan and Richard Thompson Ford, along with Gareth Fowler, JD '24, for a discussion about three cases that she argued before the Court this term, the people behind the case titles, and what it takes to represent them at the highest court in the land. Connect:Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast WebsiteStanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn PageRich Ford >>>  Twitter/XPam Karlan >>> Stanford Law School PageStanford Law School >>> Twitter/XStanford  Law Magazine >>> Twitter/XLinks:Easha Anand >>> Stanford Law School Page(00:00:00) Chapter 1: Introduction and Setting the StageEasha Anand shares the story of Mr. Ciavarini and the impact of the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic on restoring his reputation. Hosts Rich Ford and Pam Karlan introduce the episode and guests Professor Easha Anand and Gareth Fowler, discussing their work with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.(00:01:52) Chapter 2: Joining the Clinic and the Clinic's Unique ApproachGareth Fowler describes his experience joining the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic and the process of working on cases as a student. Easha Anand explains the distinctive features of the clinic's model, emphasizing the significant role of students in producing legal work.(00:05:38) Chapter 3: Working on Cases and the Sarbanes-Oxley CaseGareth Fowler discusses the specific cases he worked on during his time at the clinic, including Mendez-Colleen and United States v. Jackson. Easha Anand recounts her experience arguing the case of Murray v. UBS before the Supreme Court and the significance of the outcome for whistleblower protection.(00:15:52) Chapter 4: Insights from Oral ArgumentsEasha Anand reflects on the differences between arguing cases at lower courts versus the Supreme Court, emphasizing the unique challenges and opportunities of Supreme Court advocacy.(00:18:16) Chapter 5: Clinic's Trip to D.C.Gareth Fowler shares his experience attending Supreme Court oral arguments in Washington, D.C., providing insights into the courtroom dynamics and the significance of the proceedings.(00:20:27) Chapter 6: Preparing for Future Cases and Impactful MomentsEasha Anand discusses the upcoming case of Chiavarini and the journey of preparing for oral arguments, highlighting the client's story and the clinic's commitment to justice. Pam Karlan and Easha Anand reflect on the profound impact of their work with clients and the meaningful experiences shared during their collaboration with the Stanford Supreme Court Clinic.[00:24:23] Chapter 7: Audience Question and Answer

NCLA filed a Complaint urging the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to declare that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is a private entity unlawfully exerting government power. The unconstitutionally structured Board exercises sweeping legislative, executive, and pseudo-judicial power bestowed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, but it is staffed entirely by non-governmental private citizens who are subject to very little direction, oversight, or supervision from federal officials. This arrangement violates Article I, Sec. 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Mark is joined by NCLA's Russ Ryan to discuss the case. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the Whistleblower of the Week podcast, host Jane Turner speaks with leading whistleblower attorney Stephen M. Kohn, founding partner of Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto and Chairman of the Board of National Whistleblower Center, about the recent landmark ruling in the Supreme Court whistleblower case Murray v. UBS Securities. Kohn gives historical perspective on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and explains the law. A major aspect of SOX was that it changed the burden of proof so that whistleblowers only need to prove that their whistleblowing was a “contributing factor” to a decision to fire them. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, et al. 601 U. S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had held that whistleblowers must not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.” This was the issue before the Supreme Court in Murray. Kohn explains the statute and how the Court applied it in Murray.  He then goes on to discuss the impact of the Court's ruling on whistleblower law. “This precedent not only covers Wall-Street but covers whistleblower laws across the board.” “I believe, based on the Supreme Court decision and the jury verdict, Trevor Murray will ultimately fully prevail, and this will be a historic victory for every single corporate whistleblower, federal employee and other sectors of the economy,” Kohn says.Listen to the podcast on WNN or on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, or Amazon. Subscribe on your favorite platform!

Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz This is a Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz: a free quiz for Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz. Try it and see how you do if you need help listen the lesson over. Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz 2024 ... Read more The post Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz 2024 appeared first on Series 65 Prep Audio Lessons for the FINRA Series 65 Exam.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act arose out of the Enron scandal and was intended to prevent document shredding for the purpose of concealing corporate fraud. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

Discover the seismic shift in whistleblower protections as we trace the footsteps of Trevor Murray, the former UBS employee whose courage has carved a new path in the legal jungle. This episode is a treasure trove of insights for anyone standing at the crossroads of ethical decisions in the workplace, offering a guiding light through the murky waters of corporate fraud and employee rights under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. With the recent Supreme Court ruling in Murray's favor, whistleblowers now have a fighting chance, needing only to demonstrate that their actions were a contributing factor to adverse employment actions rather than the sole reason.Step into the arena where the scales of justice have tipped in favor of truth, as I dissect the nuances of establishing a solid fraud claim and the pivotal role of employment lawyers in this intricate dance. The conversation goes beyond the headlines, peeling back the layers of legal procedures, the strategic use of documentation, and the ever-important timelines that can make or break a case. As we explore the employer's hefty burden of proof and the impact of whistleblowing on employment termination, you'll emerge armed with the knowledge and confidence to navigate the complexities of workplace law, and perhaps, even change the game. Join me as we tackle the implications of this landmark decision for executives and employees alike, setting the stage for our next episode where we'll continue to unravel the fabric of workplace law.Links in Episode:chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https:/www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-660_7648.pdfEmployees can file claims by going to the OSHA website www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html or call OSHA at 1-800-321-OSHA (6742).  For a copy of SOX, the regulations (29 CFR 1980), and other information go to www.osha.gov and click on the link for Whistleblower”. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act has nothing to do with the events of January 6. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org. 

Today I'll be reading the brand-new, unanimous opinion of the Court in Murray v. USB Securities (Feb 8, 2024) regarding the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.   Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts

The Supreme Court made the significant announcement on Wednesday to take into account a case that entered the scene via a participant of January 6, albeit revolving around defining the parameters of the 'obstruction of an official proceeding' charge. This charge had been actively utilized by the Department of Justice to address those found guilty in the widely-discussed January 6 Capitol Riot. The judiciary's decision is definitely a positive development for all those who were part of the events on January 6, such as the initiator of the case, Joseph Fischer. This adjudication doesn't only boost the morale of those who stood shoulder to shoulder with Fischer on the day of the riot, but it is also conducive for the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump is currently in the legal crosshair being targeted with the charge according to section 1512(c)(2) of the 2004 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It's worthy of note that this charge was primarily brought up against him by none other than the Special Counsel, Jack Smith. The mentioned statute, visible in other legal instances, is traditionally deployed in scenarios that imply deception or concealment of evidence. Quite interestingly, here, its relevance with the circumstances around January 6 and its subsequent events has been queried. The implications of applying this statute to J6 defendants have led to relentless debates within the corridors of the judiciary. The Department of Justice, on its part, has so far issued charges to a whopping number of 327 J6 defendants. All these indictments are pinned on the alleged obstruction of the official process that was to give the green light to the results of the 2020 election. A crucial point to consider here is that Fischer and his legal team are standing firm, arguing the inapplicability of the charge considering the situation's unique nature.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of the show, I talk with Jared Maslin about what it means to have privacy on the internet. We talk about the difference between privacy and secrecy, the benefits and limitations of GDPR and the possibility of privacy regulation coming to the US, and we explore the biggest challenges facing data privacy today. His most recent work, including his most recent publication, "Learning From the Past: Applying Concepts of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to Restore Consumer Trust in Global Data Privacy," involves the design and testing of a more holistic data privacy risk model, using some of the key tenets of independent auditing structures and oversight functions seen after the investor crises of Enron, Tyco, and other financial reporting fraud. Their goal is to leverage the same concepts that were once applied to restore investor trust in businesses, and to extend those concepts to data privacy in order to restore consumer trust in the businesses processing their personal data. 

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects whistleblowers who report financial wrongdoing at publicly traded companies. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A. When a whistleblower invokes the Act and claims he was fired because of his report, his claim is "governed by the legal burdens of proof set forth in section 42121(b) of title 49, United States Code." 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(C). Under that incorporated framework, a whistleblowing employee meets his burden by showing that his protected activity "was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint." 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iii). If the employee meets that burden, the employer can prevail only if it "demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior." Id. § 42121(b)(2)(B)(iv). The Question Presented is: Under the burden-shifting framework that governs Sarbanes-Oxley cases, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with a "retaliatory intent" as part of his case in chief, or is the lack of "retaliatory intent" part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof?

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).CFPB v. Community Financial Servs. Ass'n of America, Ltd. (October 3) - Constitutional Law, Appropriations; Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (October 4) - Constitutional Law, Americans with Disabilities Act; Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation's failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.Murray v. UBS Securities LLC (October 10) - Labor Law, Sarbanes Oxley Act; Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (October 10) - Admiralty; Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (October 11) - Election Law; Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly's intent. Additionally, the court's handling of the alternative-map requirement, its treatment of the relationship between race and politics, the assessment of racial predominance in District 1, and the consideration of intentional discrimination are all under scrutiny. Featuring: Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLCBrian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global PartnersVikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch InstituteModerator: Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP

On this day in legal history, September 15, 1935, the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany went into effect, reorienting German citizenship around the exclusion of Jewish residents and laying the groundwork for what was to come.  As we've tried to make clear in previous “this day in legal history” segments where we've focused on Germany in the 1930s, the lesson to be learned from a legal perspective derives from the Third Reich's focus on using the rule of law to give a color of civility and process to their gross violations of human rights and atrocities. As much as genocide can come in the form of a general, festooned in medals, pressing a state's military across the countryside leaving death in its wake, the law can be coopted to make the entire affair seem civil and considered. There might be an applicable lesson to be learned and applied to the modern day here.In the fall of 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were enacted in Germany, fundamentally altering the citizenship status of Jews and imposing strict racial classifications. These laws were first announced at a Nazi Party rally in Nuremberg, comprising the Reich Citizenship Law and the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor. The former stripped Jews of their German citizenship, allowing only "full" Germans to enjoy the full protection of the law, while the latter prohibited marriage or relations between Jews and non-Jewish Germans.These regulations were visually represented through a chart that helped Germans understand the classifications, including designations for "Aryan" Germans, Jews, and individuals of mixed race. The laws had severe repercussions, as illustrated by personal narratives and vast documentation from that time. For instance, Edward Adler faced arrest and deportation for his relationship with a non-Jewish woman, and many others experienced similar fates, including forced labor, imprisonment, and eventual deportation to concentration camps. These laws marked a grim step in the Nazis' efforts to isolate and persecute the Jewish community, as well as test the waters to see how far they could take their crimes, based on their false and discriminatory racial theories.A tell for how concerned the Nazis were with how their policies would be received was the fact that they weren't enforced until after the 1936 Summer Olympics which were held in Berlin. Thereafter, anyone found violating the laws would be imprisoned and, following release from their completion of their sentence, re-arrested and sent to a concentration camp. Note the performative release and re-arresting, and consider their aforementioned focus on the rule of law and marshaling it for their evil ends. The initial process was about separating the Jewish community from the rest of the German citizenry under the auspices of protecting Germans and immiserating the former in ways smaller than what would eventually come to pass. A grim day in history, to be sure, but one we should endeavor to learn from.The Nuremberg Race Laws | Holocaust EncyclopediaSenator Kyrsten Sinema has expressed serious concerns about the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) impending alteration to the joint-employer standard, hinting at a potential vote to overturn it through a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution. The proposed rule, which is set to finalize by October 12, seeks to expand the criteria for determining joint-employer status, including considering indirect and unexercised control over another company's employees. This marks a departure from the current legal test established in 2020, which focuses on direct and immediate control.Sinema voiced her opposition at an event organized by the International Franchise Association, a body lobbying against the NLRB's proposal. The senator indicated that the rule faces significant opposition in Congress, with concerns about its potential impact on franchises like McDonald's Corp. A bipartisan coalition, including Senators Joe Manchin, Angus King, Susan Collins, James Lankford, and Mike Braun, is already collaborating to address this issue, emphasizing the bureaucratic nature of the proposed changes.The CRA resolution, which requires the support of 51 senators to pass, could potentially bypass Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's authority to block it. Votes from Sinema, Manchin, and King will be pivotal, especially if all Republican members in both the House and Senate choose to reject the rule. However, even if the resolution passes in Congress, President Joe Biden retains the power to veto it, as seen in a previous instance in May concerning a rule from the US Labor Department.Sinema Pushes Back on Labor Board's Planned Joint Employer RuleThe first cases from the January 6 Capitol riot have reached the US Supreme Court. Edward Lang and Garrett Miller, who allegedly participated in the riot, are urging the court to dismiss the obstruction charges against them. These cases are part of over 200 instances where the government is utilizing a statute from the Enron era to penalize the rioters. The central issue is the applicability of a provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the rioters who disrupted congressional activities.Lang's attorney, Norman Pattis, emphasized the growing concern over the overcriminalization of federal law and the potential misuse of prosecutorial discretion. However, Columbia law professor Daniel Richman finds it unlikely for the Supreme Court to intervene at this stage, especially given the absence of a split among federal courts of appeal, a typical precursor to Supreme Court involvement. The law under scrutiny, which punishes obstruction of official proceedings, is being challenged for its broad interpretation by the government, a stance that has seen support from judges Florence Pan and Justin R. Walker but faced dissent from Judge Gregory Katsas. The case brings up significant issues regarding the interpretation of the law, with a deadline for the federal government's response set for October 2.First Cases From Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Reach US Supreme CourtU.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has rejected Donald Trump's plea to recuse Judge Tanya Chutkan from a federal case that accuses the former president of attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. Trump had filed a legal motion claiming that Chutkan's previous remarks in court indicated a lack of impartiality, potentially affecting the fairness of the trial. These remarks were made during the sentencing of individuals involved in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, hinting at Trump's influence on the rioters. Despite Trump's criticisms of Chutkan on social media, Smith asserted that there was no valid reason for her recusal. The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has been known for her stern stance against the Capitol attack, often imposing harsher sentences than those recommended by prosecutors. The decision on whether Chutkan will recuse herself from the case, one of four criminal cases Trump is currently facing, rests with her. Trump, who is eyeing the 2024 presidential nomination, has denied all charges and labeled the prosecution's efforts as politically motivated.US opposes Trump request to remove judge in federal election case | ReutersThe proprietors of Haven Salon Spa in Wisconsin, Timothy and Carley Dillet, have assured a federal judge that they will adhere to a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) directive, following their arrest for non-compliance. In 2021, the NLRB mandated the Dilletts to reinstate a staff member who was wrongfully terminated for scrutinizing the firm's COVID-19 protocols, along with other reparations including back pay and expunging the dismissal from the employee's record. Despite the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirming the NLRB's decision, the Dilletts consistently resisted full compliance, accruing over $30,000 in fines and legal fees. NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo warned employers of severe repercussions for flouting the law. The Dilletts and their legal representative have yet to comment on the matter.Spa Owners Vow to Comply After Arrest for Flouting Labor BoardThe impeachment trial of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is nearing its conclusion, with closing arguments scheduled for Friday. Paxton, a staunch conservative and ally of former President Donald Trump, faces 16 charges in the trial, including allegations of corruption and abuse of power, primarily concerning actions purportedly taken to shield a rich political donor under federal scrutiny and to conceal an extramarital affair. The trial has revealed deep divisions within the Texas Republican Party, with some members accusing Paxton of tarnishing the party and the state's reputation. The Senate, which is predominantly Republican, will decide Paxton's fate, requiring a two-thirds majority to convict him on any charge, which would result in his permanent removal from office.Paxton, who has been temporarily relieved of his duties pending the trial outcome, has denounced the proceedings as a political witch hunt. He has faced corruption allegations since his initial election in 2014, but managed to secure re-election last November. His defense team has portrayed the accusing former aides as rebellious political moderates, while the prosecution has presented them as credible conservative witnesses who reported their concerns to the FBI in 2020. The impeachment process was initiated after Paxton sought approval for a $3.3 million settlement with ex-employees who had accused him of office abuse, a request that was not granted by state legislators.Impeachment trial of Texas AG Paxton nears end, could see him removed | ReutersIn an unprecedented move, the United Auto Workers (UAW) union has initiated strikes against the three major American automakers: General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis. This is the first time in history that the union has simultaneously targeted all three companies, with workers walking out of plants in Missouri, Michigan, and Ohio. The UAW has termed this strategy as a "Stand Up Strike", a flexible approach allowing them to escalate their efforts progressively to secure fair contracts at each automaker. Initially, less than 13,000 of the 145,000 UAW members have participated in the strike, affecting a selection of plants that would significantly impact suppliers and dealers while minimizing the number of workers on strike pay.The strike follows the automakers' rejection of the union's demands for higher wages, enhanced benefits, and increased job protections, despite the companies enjoying record or near-record profits. The automakers had proposed substantial pay increases, but these did not meet the expectations of the union negotiators. The UAW aims to recover many benefits relinquished over a decade ago when the companies were nearing bankruptcy. The union is also advocating for the reinstatement of traditional pension plans and retiree health coverage for workers hired post-2007, and an end to forced overtime and the utilization of temporary workers. Moreover, the UAW expresses concerns over potential job losses and plant closures as the industry shifts towards electric vehicles, which require less labor for assembly compared to traditional vehicles.UAW workers launch unprecedented strike against all Big Three automakers Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of French Insider, Caroline Faucher-Winter, Co-President at La French Tech NYC, joins host Valérie Demont to discuss the French Tech 2030 program, challenges that French start-ups looking to secure funding and establish themselves in the United States may face, and how these start-ups can navigate and prepare for the U.S. market.   What We Discussed in This Episode: How would you describe the French Tech 2030 program? What are the DO's and DONT's to keep in mind for a French entrepreneur looking to set up in the United States? What are common mistakes French start-ups make in their first steps in the United States? How can they best prepare for this endeavor? What does the financing environment for French tech companies look like in the United States? What are the most effective ways to raise funds in the United States? What can French tech companies do to better position themselves to raise funds in the United States? How many succeed? Is it better to raise funds in Europe and then launch in the United States? What do you think of the role and impact of social media on start-up marketing and PR in the United States? What is the main advice you would give to a start-up looking to expand in the United States?   About Caroline Faucher-Winter Caroline Faucher-Winter is a Senior Strategic Public Relations Advisor at Kalamari and has been involved in the French Tech New York ecosystem since 2018. Since then, she has actively participated in the development of French Tech, and was named co-president in 2022. Caroline thrives on contact with others and is committed to diversity and inclusion, in particular through the French Tech NY program aimed at helping French entrepreneurs to settle in the U.S. Caroline has built her career around start-ups and innovation, first covertly and later openly, acting as a relay and link between business owners, VC funds, and government agencies. She is also the director of the Galion Project, a think tank for creative business people. Through the course of her career, Caroline has established connections across ecosystems, guided many transatlantic participants (FrenchTech, BusinessFrance, FrenchFounders, The Galion Project, etc.), and helped connect, decode, and promote the production of synergies and value.   About Valérie Demont In the firm''s New York office, Valérie Demont is a partner in Sheppard Mullin's Corporate Practice Group, where she focuses primarily on U.S. and cross-border mergers and acquisitions, capital markets and securities offerings and corporate governance matters. As a leader of the firm's French Desk team, she advises foreign companies on the establishment and growth of their operations in the United States, acting as de facto "outside general counsel" for non-U.S. companies in the United States.   Valérie has been involved in numerous mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures and dispositions for corporations and private equity funds in the U.S., Europe and Asia (including India). She also represents U.S. and non-U.S. issuers and underwriters in a wide range of primary and secondary capital markets and securities offering financing transactions involving equity, debt, convertible and hybrid securities. These transactions include IPOs, private placements and offshore securities offerings and the establishment of American Depositary Receipt (ADR) programs. Furthermore, Valérie regularly advises companies on their reporting obligations under U.S. securities laws as well as corporate governance and other compliance obligations under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and stock exchange regulations. Not only is she a frequent speaker at events focused on cross-border trade, but she is also an outside pro bono counsel to Girls Who Invest, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing the number of women in portfolio management and executive leadership in the asset management industry.   Contact Information:  Caroline Faucher-Winter  Valérie Demont    Additional Resources: Sheppard Mullin French Desk Blog Thank you for listening! Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show to receive every new episode delivered straight to your podcast player every week.   If you enjoyed this episode, please help us get the word out about this podcast. Rate and Review this show in Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher or Spotify. It helps other listeners find this show.   This podcast is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matter, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs.  

In this episode of S&C's Critical Insights, Annie Ostrager and Tracy Richelle High, Co-Heads of S&C's Labor & Employment Group, discuss recent developments in the Securities and Exchange Commission's whistleblowing program.  The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as modified by the Dodd-Frank Act, provides protections and incentives for whistleblowers who report potential violations of the securities laws. Dodd-Frank also incentivizes potential informants to come forward by authorizing the SEC to grant awards to whistleblowers. Annie and Tracy discuss two recent amendments by the SEC to its whistleblower program that appear to reflect the agency's readiness to grant more and larger awards. One authorizes the SEC to make awards for related, non-SEC actions, even if they may be more directly connected to other agencies. The second gives the SEC discretion to grant a larger award in appropriate circumstances. They also discuss two cases recently brought by whistleblowers against the SEC in the Third and Fifth Circuits involving the agency's denials of whistleblower awards. 

United States corporate law regulates the governance, finance and power of corporations in US law. Every state and territory has its own basic corporate code, while federal law creates minimum standards for trade in company shares and governance rights, found mostly in the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by laws like the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The US Constitution was interpreted by the US Supreme Court to allow corporations to incorporate in the state of their choice, regardless of where their headquarters are. Over the 20th century, most major corporations incorporated under the Delaware General Corporation Law, which offered lower corporate taxes, fewer shareholder rights against directors, and developed a specialized court and legal profession. Nevada has attempted to do the same. Twenty-four states follow the Model Business Corporation Act, while New York and California are important due to their size. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

As the regulatory environment continues to evolve and organizations adapt, it is becoming increasingly important for ethics and compliance professionals to break down department silos.  But how do you do that effectively when there are so many stakeholders involved? How do you develop a stronger network of assurance partners inside your organization? On this episode of LRN's Principled Podcast, host Dave Hansen talks about the impact of cross-functional collaboration on program effectiveness with Tony Tocco, the chief ethics and compliance officer and assistant corporate secretary of DT Midstream. For a transcript of this podcast, visit the episode page at LRN.com.   Guest: Tony Tocco Anthony M. Tocco (Tony) is the chief ethics and compliance officer and assistant corporate secretary at DT Midstream. He is responsible for overseeing the development and implementation of effective programs and processes to promote an ethical culture and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. He also provides board governance and support responsibilities as the assistant corporate secretary.   Tony joined DT Midstream as part of the business unit spin from DTE where he began as the manager of Audit Services in 2001 as a result of the merger with MCN Energy Group.  In 2002, he was promoted to assistant general auditor and subsequently performed as interim general auditor for a period. During this time, Tony directed the development and implementation of the independent centralized testing center for Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance and supporting corporate governance policies and procedures.  Prior to joining DTE Energy, Tony held leadership positions in the MCN Energy Internal Audit department and Michigan Consolidated Gas Company's Corporate Security & Investigations department. In total, Tony has approximately 30 years of compliance related experience in the utility and energy industry. Tony also has four additional years of compliance experience working for the Department of Defense in reviewing and auditing defense contracts and also established the internal audit department for a major Michigan public university.  Tony earned a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Detroit College of Business, an MBA from Wayne State University, and a Master of Science degree in security administration from the University of Detroit-Mercy. Tony is a Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional (CCEP), a Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) and a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE).    Tony is a member of the Ethics and Compliance Institute (ECI), the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics (SCCE), the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and the Society for Corporate Governance.    Tony also has lectured for the Institute of Internal Auditors, the Society for Corporate Compliance and Ethics, the Compliance and Ethics Officer Association, Compliance Week and the University of Detroit-Mercy. Tony is a former chairperson for the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association Utility Industry Group, which is comprised of approximately 70 utility companies. Tony serves on the CCEP Exam Writing Committee and is on the Board of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Metropolitan Detroit as development committee chair.    Host: Dave Hansen Dave Hansen is the global advocacy marketing director at LRN, an organization focused on ethics and compliance solutions that help people around the world do the right thing. His team drives LRN's customer obsession by building community, deepening customer engagement, and finding meaningful opportunities for collaboration. Dave is passionate about learning, having spent most of his career within higher education or training. He loves sharing customer stories and best practices in the name of continuous improvement. Dave is a proud dad, coffee enthusiast, drummer, and scuba diver. In his spare time, he enjoys cooking and reading!  

SIE Exam Lesson 25 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz SIE Exam Lesson 25 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz This is a SIE Exam Lesson 25 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz which is the Sarbanes Oxley Act, See how you do if you need help listen to the lesson over. Questions covered include 1. The Uniform Securities Agent State Law Examination is also known as the ___. A. Series 63 Exam B. Series 64 Exam C. Series 65 Exam D. Series 66 Exam 2. Blue sky laws are federal regulations. A. True B. False 3. An offering that is exempted from federal regulation is always exempted from state regulation. A. True B. False 4. A person has registered his securities in the Securities and Exchange Commission but he wants those securities be recognized in a certain state. What kind of registration does he need to file? A. registration by coordination B. registration by filing C. registration by notification D. registration by qualification 5. Taking orders from customers in a certain state requires broker-dealers to be registered in that state. A. True B. False 6. This rule separated the conflicts of interest that were inherent between the underwriter and the research analyst. A. Prudent Man Rule B. Sarbanes-Oxley Act C. Securities Investor Protection Act D. Trust Indenture Act 7. Which of the following would a prudent man likely to do? A. buy government securities for his client B. buy naked options for his client C. buy penny stocks for his client D. short stocks in the client's account 8. Which of the following will most likely be found in the legal list of securities that fall within the prudent man rule? (Select all that apply.) A. government securities B. highly rated corporate bonds C. highly rated municipal bonds D. 144 stocks 9. The Trust Indenture Act of 1939 requires a trust indenture for a corporate bond offering of at least ___. A. $3 million B. $4 million C. $5 million D. $6 million 10. Which of the following is true about the Investment Advisor Act of 1940? (Select all that apply.) A. It covers firms that offer wrap accounts and charge fees. B. It covers the people who charge a fee for investment advice. C. It only applies if the investment advisor gives advice to 15 or more people. D. It requires that investment advisors pass the Series 7 Examination. 11. The Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the customer's assets up to ___. A. $500,000 B. $600,000 C. $800,000 D. $1,000,000 12. A client has an IRA account and a regular account. Under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970, the client has only one account. A. True B. False 13. The Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits unsolicited calls before 8:00 A.M. or after 9:00 P.M. of the local time of the caller. A. True B. False 14. Which of the following is true about the Do Not Call list? (Select all that apply.) A. A firm can only call the persons listed on the Do Not Call list during weekdays on office hours but not on weekends and non-office hours. B. A person listed on the Do Not Call list can bring civil law enforcement actions against the firm that calls him. C. It applies to unsolicited faxes. D. The caller must identify himself by name, firm, and where he's coming from when calling a person on the Do Not Call list so that his call may be entertained. 15. Which of the following does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act require? A. It requires accounting firm to combine their management consultation business with their auditing business. B. It requires accounting firm to have both management consultation business and auditing business. C. It requires accounting firm to have either management consultation business or auditing business but not both. D. It requires accounting firms to separate their management consultation business from their auditing business. 16. According to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, an accounting firm acting as auditors for the firm has to report to the ___. A.

SponsorsTri-Merit - https://ohmyfraud.promo/trimeritIt seems that fraud is always in the news, but how much fraud is happening that we don't know about? How could someone even figure that out? Believe it or not, people have tried, and in this episode, Caleb and Greg discuss a recent attempt to quantify how pervasive fraud is in corporate America. HOW TO EARN FREE CPEIn less than 10 minutes, you can earn 1 hour of NASBA-approved accounting CPE after listening to this episode. Download our mobile app, sign up, and look for the Oh My Fraud channel. Register for the course, complete a short quiz, and get your CPE certificate.Download the app:Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/earmark-cpe/id1562599728Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.earmarkcpe.appQuestions? Need help? Email support@earmarkcpe.com.CONNECT WITH THE HOSTSGreg Kyte, CPATwitter: https://twitter.com/gregkyteLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregkyte/Caleb NewquistTwitter: https://twitter.com/cnewquistLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/calebnewquist/Email us at ohmyfraud@earmarkcpe.comSources: How pervasive is corporate fraud? [SpringerLink] Just How Common Is Corporate Fraud? [NYT] Sarbanes–Oxley Act [Wikipedia] Market Capitalization [Investopedia]

About Stephen Kohn:Stephen M. Kohn is widely recognised as one of the nation's leading qui tam and whistleblower attorneys. Kohn represents Danske Bank whistleblower Howard Wilkinson in the largest money laundering scandal in world history ($230 billion), and successfully represented Greek whistleblowers whose information triggered a $320 million sanction against Novartis drug company under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. He also won the largest ever individual tax whistleblower reward for UBS whistleblower Bradley Birkenfeld ($104 million), and the largest ever reward ever paid to an individual under the related action provisions of the IRS, SEC and DOJ programs ($177 million).His record of winning whistleblower cases dates back to 1984. His successful advocacy has resulted in landmark precedents in whistleblower and qui tam law. Kohn has also helped draft key whistleblower legislation and regulatory rules, including those incorporated into the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Dodd-Frank Act, the IRS Qui Tam whistleblower amendments, the AML Whistleblower Law, and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.Order his new book Rules For Whistleblowers: https://kkc.com/product/rules-for-whistleblowers/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz This is a Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz: a free quiz for Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz. Try it and see how you do if you need help listen the lesson over. Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz Series ... Read more The post Series 65 Exam Lesson 58 Sarbanes-Oxley Act Quiz appeared first on Series 65 Prep Audio Lessons for the FINRA Series 65 Exam.

The US Supreme Court is set to clarify the burden-shifting framework for whistleblowers in a case involving a former UBS Securities research strategist. The case hinges on whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires whistleblowers to show that their former employer fired them with retaliatory intent or if it is sufficient to prove that the protected disclosure was a contributing factor to the decision. Requiring proof of retaliatory intent would make it almost impossible for whistleblowers to pursue Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation claims, and the Supreme Court is expected to undercut the legal safeguards for corporate whistleblowers if it upholds the decision. The Tenth, Ninth, Fifth, and Fourth circuits instead have applied the contributing factor test. The decision could have a domino effect on anti-retaliation protections for corporate whistleblowers in other industries. The case could also impact federal whistleblower protection statutes that have virtually identical legal burdens, and there are concerns that the decision could reduce the number of whistleblower cases that otherwise would've survived the summary judgment stage or resulted in a verdict after trial.UBS Whistleblower Case Creates Avenue to Upend Retaliation TestSenators Richard Blumenthal and Ron Johnson are investigating KPMG's relationship with three recently failed banks, requesting a wide range of documents as part of their initial inquiry. The senators have requested "all communications," records related to the firm's audits and advisory work, and a complete list of all advisory work between KPMG and Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank. The inquiry comes as part of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. KPMG has faced scrutiny for issuing clean audits of all three banks shortly before they collapsed. The senators have also asked KPMG for "all documentation" detailing the firm's policies and practices for any non-audit services, as well as "a complete list" of the firm's employees, contractors, and subcontractors employed by any of the banks after their affiliation with KPMG. They have requested the firm to send the documents as they become available to expedite the subcommittee's review. KPMG has not yet provided a comment on the investigation.Big Minimum Competence fans will remember this was a subject I covered in a past column and corresponding Column Tuesday segment. I argued on April 4th that the recent collapses of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and the near miss at First Republic Bank, all point to the culpability of the Big Four accounting firms that had signed off on the banks' financial statements. I metaphorized the legal concept in torts called res ipsa loquitur, which means "the thing speaks for itself" in Latin, and suggested that something is amiss in the audit opinions provided by KPMG on these banks' fundamentals. The revolving door of personnel between accounting firms and the banks they purport to audit is also part of the problem. Banks with high average deposits and relatively few depositors are especially at risk, as they may be vulnerable to losing their deposit base if there are potential risks in their books. My conclusion was there needs to be liability placed on the accounting firm tasked with acting on behalf of a regulator when that organization fails to identify indicia of questionable financial health. Moreover, consultants who work for accounting firms should not wear auditor hats. It seems there may be some political will to make one or both of those solutions a reality. Senators Open Probe Into KPMG's Relationships With Failed BanksBig Four Auditors and Consultants Need Liability—And a DivorceAnd remember when we reported on Lewis Brisbois having a 100+ attorney walk-out? Well, the founding partner the firm, Robert Lewis, has stepped down from his role as chairman after the departure of at least 110 lawyers to a new firm this week. Lewis helped start the Los Angeles-founded firm in 1979, which has grown to around 1,700 lawyers. Lewis Brisbois will dissolve its executive committee effective immediately, and a newly expanded 13-member management committee will oversee the firm. The firm will hold elections on May 9 to add five new members to the management committee, which will then name a managing partner and other top leaders.Lewis Brisbois chair, executive committee are out after lawyer exodus | ReutersFour members of the Proud Boys far-right militia group, including its former leader Enrique Tarrio, have been convicted of seditious conspiracy, which is kind of like treason's little brother and entails a plot to oppose the government with force, under a Civil War-era law. The conviction carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison. The jury found they had plotted to attack the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a failed bid to block Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's election victory. The verdicts after a trial lasting nearly four months in federal court in Washington were another victory for the US Justice Department, which Attorney General Merrick Garland said has secured the convictions of more than 600 people related to the Capitol rampage by supporters of then-President Donald Trump. The rampage occurred on the day when Congress was voting on formally certifying Biden's victory in the November 2020 election, with rioters attacking police with a variety of weapons. Five people including a police officer died during or shortly after the riot. More than 140 police officers were injured.Jury convicts Proud Boys members of seditious conspiracy in US Capitol attack | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Build confidence through experience, get comfortable, and ask questions to expand your exposure with senior leaders, says my next guest Andre Reid of Jackson Health System.Reid deploys an innovative and progressive thinking mindset that is solution oriented. He focuses on processes, policies, and procedures as a Senior Audit and Compliance Officer. He encourages others on his team through desire and drive and understands that the biggest asset in the world is our people.The best gift you can give another individual is education. You can grow your network and resources to access opportunities through education.  Andre Reid is a Diplomatic professional with over 15 years of assurance and advisory experience. Demonstrates effectiveness as a leader and working in a team environment. Experienced in grasping the big picture and incorporating strategic initiatives in the audit plan from a risk base perspective. Experienced in Enterprise Risk Management ("ERM") and Continuous Monitoring/Assurance development to help align organizational goals and initiative with risk identification and management. With an ability to communicate in an effective/assertive manner to all levels of management as well as executive management. More than 5 years of international work experience, including in Europe, North America, Mexico, and Central/South America. Proven track record in managing a variety of audit assignments and experience with assessing compliance with the Sarbanes Oxley Act.. Effectively using data analysis techniques to provide population systemic value and exploring Robotic Process Automation ("RPA") within the internal audit function to provide management with advisory efficiencies for routine challenging business processes.Demonstrated expertise in designing comprehensive risk-based audit and compliance programs that address an organization's risk impact associated with strategic objectives and initiatives. Reid earned his undergraduate degree at Florida State University in business and his MBA at the University of Miami School of Business in Healthcare policy.Let us welcome Andre Reid to the Follow the Brand Podcast, Where we are building  a 5 STAR Brand that You Can FOLLOW!

Bob stops by The Business Brew to discuss his early career, what he has learned over his career, investing in cyclical businesses/industries, and his biggest investment "loser." This conversation is filled with good lessons and we hope you enjoy. Robert Robotti is the President and Chief Investment Officer of Robotti & Company. Prior to forming Robotti & Company, Incorporated in 1983, Bob was a vice president and shareholder of Gabelli & Company, Inc. He worked in public accounting before coming to Wall Street and is currently an inactive CPA. Bob holds a BS from Bucknell University and an MBA in Accounting from Pace University. Some of Bob's areas of coverage include Special Situations, Energy Industry and Home Building. Bob is the principal of the managing member or general partner of several investment vehicles. Bob currently serves on the Board of Directors of a NYSE-listed real estate company, AMREP Corporation, located in Germantown, PA; as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Pulse Seismic Inc., a seismic data licensing business located in Calgary, Alberta; as an Independent Director of PrairieSky Royalty, a Toronto Stock Exchange listed company located in Calgary, Alberta, having one of the largest portfolios of sub-surface mineral rights in western Canada; as a recently elected Director of NYSE-listed Tidewater, Inc. which owns and operates one of the largest fleets of OSVs (Offshore Support Vessels) in the industry; and was previously on the Board of Directors of BMC Building Materials Holding Corporation, prior to the completion of its merger with Stock Building Supply Holdings, Inc. on December 1, 2015; and Bob had served on the Board of Panhandle Oil & Gas Company, a NYSE-listed diversified mineral company located in Oklahoma City through May 1, 2020. In addition, he serves on the Boards of many non-profit organizations where he generously donates his time and expertise. Previously, Bob was a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Advisory Committee on Smaller Public Companies, established to examine the impact of Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other aspects of the federal securities law. This episode is sponsored by Stratosphere.io. Stratosphere.io is a fantastic web based research terminal for company specific metrics like KPIs and segment revenues. Head over to Stratosphere.io to try the product for free OR use the promo code BREW for 15% off Stratosphere's premium product. Detailed Show Notes Below: 3:20 - Bob's early career 6:35 - How Bob ended up as CFO of Gabelli and Company 10:25 - Bob's evolution as an investor 14:25 - How tough times create better businesses and Builder's FirstSource discussion 18:20 - Holding equities and Bob's biggest loser 29:50 - Why earnings drive liquidity 31:20 - How Bob implements his takeaways from his biggest loser 33:20 - Why Bob got excited about the Revenge of the Old Economy in 2020 35:20 - The case for Olin Corp 43:50 - How Bob's “margin of safety” comes from his portfolio company's asset bases 45:50 - Bob's energy outlook; this is an around the world oil discussion that lasts ~11 minutes 1:02:20 - Why reshoring makes sense 1:04:30 - Did Volker really succeed? 1:05:20 - Why China is no longer deflationary 1:09:20 - The nuance of selling 1:11:20 - The potential perils of linear thinking

Gary Vecchiarelli is the Chief Financial Officer at CleanSpark, a sustainable Bitcoin mining company solving modern energy challenges. As a licensed CPA, he has over 10 years of experience in public accounting, having worked for international firms with clientele ranging in size from $50 million to $1 billion while operating in various industries. Gary serves on the board of directors for the Doral Academy of Nevada and Financial Executives International Las Vegas Chapter. He was named by VEGAS INC magazine to the “Las Vegas 40 Under 40” list in 2014. In this episode… With the enforcement of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, finance departments must remain transparent in their reporting practices to mitigate fraudulent activity. Yet these departments continue to struggle with privacy and security measures and as a result, fall victim to wire fraud and phishing scams. So, how can you assess and prevent risks to stay compliant and combat attacks? Finance and accounting expert Gary Vecchiarelli recommends implementing internal security controls to conduct preventative risk analyses and assessments and forecast potential attacks. At the foundational level, finance departments can invest in firewalls and encryption and instruct team members to approve transactions. To ensure maximum security, Gary advises incorporating the COSO Framework into your business processes to comply with industry standards and identify, monitor, and eliminate risks effectively. In this episode of She Said Privacy/He Said Security, Jodi and Justin Daniels host Gary Vecchiarelli, Chief Financial Officer at CleanSpark, to discuss managing risks in financial environments. Gary shares how he manages security from a financial perspective, how finance departments can prevent fraud and hacking, and the impact of risk assessments on financial decisions.

The FTX fraud has dominated headlines now for weeks, during which we've debated if and how Acquired could uniquely add to the conversation. Then we realized there was an angle so perfect that we had to drop everything and enter Acquired research overdrive: Enron. Travel back with us to the granddaddy fraud of them all, 2001's then-largest bankruptcy in US history and the impetus for the famous Sarbanes-Oxley Act. So much of Enron's history parallels FTX that the uncanniness is almost unbelievable — right down to the same CEO running the two bankruptcies. Sit back and enjoy this crazy tale of villainy, greed, and the nature of humans and money. Maybe just don't take notes on this one… If you want more Acquired, you can follow our public LP Show feed here in the podcast player of your choice (including Spotify!). Sponsors: Thank you to our presenting sponsor for all of Season 11, Fundrise. If you're considering raising a growth round of capital in the next year, you should definitely explore raising some of it with the Fundrise Innovation Fund. Just email notvc@fundrise.com, and tell them Ben & David sent you. And if you're an individual looking for exposure to private growth-stage technology companies, you can invest in the Innovation Fund here. Thank you as well to Vanta. Vanta is the leader in automated security compliance – making SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, and more a breeze for startups and organizations of all sizes. Everyone in the Acquired community can get 10% off using this link. And finally thank you also to Pilot!  Links: Book Andy Fastow as a speaker for your next corporate event!

The FTX fraud has dominated headlines now for weeks, during which we've debated if and how Acquired could uniquely add to the conversation. Then we realized there was an angle so perfect that we had to drop everything and enter Acquired research overdrive: Enron. Travel back with us to the granddaddy fraud of them all, 2001's then-largest bankruptcy in US history and the impetus for the famous Sarbanes-Oxley Act. So much of Enron's history parallels FTX that the uncanniness is almost unbelievable — right down to the same CEO running the two bankruptcies. Sit back and enjoy this crazy tale of villainy, greed, and the nature of humans and money. Maybe just don't take notes on this one… If you want more Acquired, you can follow our public LP Show feed here in the podcast player of your choice (including Spotify!). Sponsors: Thank you to our presenting sponsor for all of Season 11, Fundrise. If you're considering raising a growth round of capital in the next year, you should definitely explore raising some of it with the Fundrise Innovation Fund. Just email notvc@fundrise.com, and tell them Ben & David sent you. And if you're an individual looking for exposure to private growth-stage technology companies, you can invest in the Innovation Fund here. Thank you as well to Vanta. Vanta is the leader in automated security compliance – making SOC 2, HIPAA, GDPR, and more a breeze for startups and organizations of all sizes. Everyone in the Acquired community can get 10% off using this link. And finally thank you also to Pilot! Links: Book Andy Fastow as a speaker for your next corporate event!

The US enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) two decades ago. In this special episode, host Heather Horn was joined by Wes Bricker, PwC's Vice Chair and Trust Solutions Co-Leader for the US and Mexico, and Sandy Peters, the CFA Institute's Senior Head of Global Advocacy, to reflect on how SOX has impacted the public company reporting ecosystem during that time, and what investors think of the regulatory framework.In this episode, you will hear them discuss:1:47 - What led to the enactment of SOX9:52 - How management and auditor responsibilities have evolved since 200214:35 - The increasing importance of transparency for investors21:51 - How SOX enhanced investors' understanding of the financial reporting process26:34 - How increased scrutiny over data, process, and controls resulted in increase investor confidence36:49 - The evolution of ESG reporting and the importance of trust in ESG disclosures49:25 - The future corporate reporting and importance of internal controls over nonfinancial and “pre-financial” dataWes Bricker is PwC's Vice Chair and Trust Solutions Co-Leader for the US and Mexico. In this role he oversees the largest Trust platform in the world, bringing together the firm's combined Audit, ESG, Digital Assurance, and Tax Reporting capabilities to best help clients as they seek to build trust with their stakeholders. As co-leader, Wes is responsible for the quality of service, excellence in the work performed by over 21,000 partners and staff, developing diverse teams and driving innovation. Sandy Peters is the Senior Head of Global Advocacy at the CFA Institute. In this role, she leads the advocacy and regulatory affairs global efforts, including corporate disclosures, financial reporting, accounting and ESG/sustainability. Sandy also serves as a CFA Institute spokesperson to key regulators and standard setters, and works with stakeholders in the policymaking process. Heather Horn is PwC's National Office thought leader, responsible for developing our communications strategy and conveying firm positions on accounting and financial reporting matters. She is the engaging host of PwC's accounting and reporting weekly podcast and quarterly webcast series. With over 30 years of experience, Heather's accounting and auditing expertise includes financial instruments and rate-regulated accounting.Transcripts available upon request for individuals who may need a disability-related accommodation. Please send requests to us_podcast@pwc.com. 

On this episode of the inSecurities podcast, Chris & Kurt catch up with George Wilson, Director of PLI's SEC Institute, to discuss recent developments at the SEC and possible changes on the horizon for FASB and PCAOB standards. Plus, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, George tests Chris & Kurt with some SOX trivia.

James Park, a Professor at UCLA Law School, discusses the 20th anniversary of the landmark Sarbanes Oxley Act and his new book: "The Valuation Treadmill: How Securities Fraud Threatens the Integrity of Public Companies," which describes the pressure on public companies to commit securities fraud.June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Marking 20 years since the passing of the landmark Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002, Chris and Kurt talk about SOX's origin story; its perceived influence on accounting, auditing, and the law; and the lasting implications of SOX in today's markets. They are joined by Professor James J. Park of the UCLA School of Law, who returns to the podcast after discussing SEC Enforcement trends in Episode 30, as he shares his take on SOX and talks about his upcoming book The Valuation Treadmill: How Securities Fraud Threatens the Integrity of Public Companies. (Pre-order The Valuation Treadmill today!)