首页> 外文期刊>The economist >Whose side are they on?
【24h】

Whose side are they on?

机译:他们站在谁一边?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Of all the controversial changes arising from America's new corporate-scandal-inspired Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, the one that lawyers like least is, yes, the one about lawyers. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is due to agree by January 26th the details of new rules requiring lawyers who learn of fraud or any breach of fiduciary duty at firms they work for to squeal until the breach is redressed, even if this means calling the SEC itself. Many corporate lawyers are aghast and fighting to soften the new rules. Currently, under cover of attorney-client privilege, all manner of rotten information that passes before lawyers can be kept confidential. According to lawyers, this allows candour and, thus, appropriate advice. This privilege has been written into state ethical codes for attorneys. The shield protecting lawyers from liability for dubious corporate actions was reinforced by a 1994 Supreme Court decision exempting lawyers from being guilty of "aiding and abetting" corporate fraud and by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.
机译:在美国新的公司丑闻启发下的萨班斯-奥克斯利法案引起的所有有争议的变化中,律师最不喜欢的一项是关于律师的一项。美国证券交易委员会(SEC)将于1月26日前同意新规定的细节,新规定要求了解欺诈或在其工作的公司违反信托义务的律师必须追究其责任,即使该违法行为得到纠正SEC本身。许多公司律师都在为软化新规定而感到震惊。当前,在律师-委托人特权的掩护下,律师可以对传递给律师的所有烂信息进行保密。根据律师的说法,这允许坦率,从而提供适当的建议。该特权已被写入律师的国家道德守则中。 1994年最高法院免除律师“协助和教tting”公司欺诈罪的判决以及1995年《私人证券诉讼改革法案》加强了保护律师免于承担可疑公司行为责任的盾牌。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号