Login or Register

Featured Blogger

Rules complicated for reinstating 401(k) contribution matching

Red-Hot Thread

"The corporate brand is not only used to improve competitive positioning and express company aspirations, it can also be a powerful tool to motivate employees."

Latest Forum Posts

in Your Career by SherylNash01, 16-07-10 16:28
in Your Career by SherylNash01, 16-07-10 15:58
in Your Career by SherylNash01, 16-07-10 15:52

CFOZone Experts

Opinions and views from expert CFOZone members.

Tag >> Supreme Court
Jul 01

Supremes rule against employers

Posted by Smerd in Supreme Courthealth insurancehealth care reformhealth carebenefits


The Supreme Court this week rejected a challenge by employers to San Francisco's universal healthcare program. The justices denied an appeal from the Golden Gate Restaurant Association of a lower court ruling that upheld the program's requirement that employers help pay the bill or give their workers health coverage.

Jun 29

Court decision undermines PCAOB's independence

Posted by Ron F in Supreme CourtSecurities and Exchange CommissionSection 404Sarbanes-OxleyPublic Company Accounting Oversight BoardPCAOBFASBcomplianceauditorsauditingAccountingaccountants

Ron F

We're not quite as sure as others are that yesterday's Supreme Court decision regarding SarbOx is so utterly meaningless regarding the future of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

Sure, the court said the law is still fully in effect, blah, blah, blah.

Jun 28

Foreign companies escape US jurisdiction

Posted by nicklord in VivendiSupreme CourtPorscheNABInfineonEADSBPAlstom



A ruling by the US Supreme Court last Thursday effectively ended US jurisdiction in so-called foreign cubed cases. These lawsuits are where foreign shareholders in foreign companies listed in foreign exchanges seek to bring cases against those companies in US courts.
The Court threw out a case brought by three Australian shareholders against Aussie bank NAB. The shareholders claimed that they had been misled on the performance of the bank's US mortgage servicing subsidiary. But the justices said that the section of the Exchange Law that they were using was never intended to cover foreign companies or their foreign shareholders especially when those securities were bought on a foreign exchange. This was despite the alleged fraud happening within the US.
The ruling has massive implications for a number of foreign companies who are currently being sued by overseas shareholders in US courts. These companies include Porsche, Vivendi, EADS, Infineon and Alstom. While these companies will still be sued by their investors in their home jurisdictions, they will now in all likelihood escape trial in the US.
Shareholders like to sue in the US because the securities laws are seen to favor investors over corporate management. 

Jun 17

Aiders and abetters in cross-hairs

Posted by Stephen Taub in Supreme CourtStoneridgesecurities fraudSecurities and Exchange Commissioncomplianceaiders and abetters

Stephen Taub

Good news for lawyers and bad news for companies.

The folks in Washington who are trying to piece together the details of the financial overhaul bill want to cast a wider net of potential defendants in a securities fraud.

Apr 14

Hiring illegals costs carpet maker $18 million

Posted by Stephen Taub in Supreme CourtsettlementrICOillegalscompliance

Stephen Taub

So, you think you can save money by hiring illegals at lower salaries than U.S. citizens and legal residents are willing to take? Think again.

Just ask the folks at carpet maker Mohawk Industries.

Feb 05

Maryland corporation plans to run for Congress

Posted by annearf in Supreme CourtMurray HillcorporationCongress


What's the logical conclusion of the recent Supreme Court ruling that corporations are legally individuals and, therefore, have the same rights to free speech given to the average Joe?

That corporations should be able to run for elected office, of course. And assume appointed judicial positions.

Jan 21

The Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling lets corporations have it both ways

Posted by annearf in Supreme CourtMcCain-Feingoldcorporationscampaign finance


The Supreme Court just obliterated long-standing restrictions on how much corporations can spend to support or oppose political candidates. And it did so, largely based on an astoundingly hypocritical and nonsensical issue.

 The 5-4 vote overturned a ruling that corporations can't use their own money for campaign ads, although it didn't allow them to  make direct contributions. Also, the court struck down the McCain-Feingold provision prohibiting corporations and labor unions from financing political ads shortly before an election.

Market Data

Copyright © 2009-2010 CFOZone. All rights reserved. CFOZone is a property of Professional Social Networks, Inc.