Sarbanes-Oxley meaning

In this issue: Probate Court of Protection HMRC Manuals updates Tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance Regulatory compliance for Private Client Budgets and Finance Bills Insolvency—Private Client Contentious trusts and estates Pensions, insurance and tax efficient investments Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland International Question of the week Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Private Client: a Lexis+® community New and updated content Dates for your diary Trackers Latest Q&As Useful information Probate Bona Vacantia Division reinstates unclaimed estates list following fraud review Working with the Government Legal Department, the Bona Vacantia Division (BVD) has confirmed the restoration of the Bona Vacantia unclaimed estates list following a review of its release. Publication had been paused in July 2025 owing to allegations of fraud in the probate system. The review found no evidence that the unclaimed estates list was connected to fraudulent activity. Even so, BVD has judged...

Pre-action disclosure in probate claims and orders for costs (Dahlman v Oxley & Palmers Solicitors) Dahlman v Oxley & another [2025] EWHC 2962 (Ch) What are the practical implications of this case? This judgment operates as a practical guide for both Applicants and Respondents on managing pre-action disclosure requests in probate disputes. For Respondents, the message is straightforward: unjustified or unexplained delay in answering valid Larke v Nugus enquiries and producing the Will file creates a genuine risk of an adverse costs order on a pre-action disclosure application. For Applicants, consistency of approach in correspondence is emphasised. Proposed respondents must be clearly warned of the intended application and that costs will be pursued. If the position later shifts and it is suggested that, notwithstanding lateness, costs will not be sought if disclosure is provided voluntarily, that concession substantially weakens the Applicant’s position when later seeking their costs. What was the background? The Deceased died on 1 July 2024. In 2022 he and his wife executed...

The key United States (US) regulators and regulations that govern structured products and securitisations issued outside the US are summarised below. Regulatory bodies Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) The SEC, a federal agency, is responsible for the principal US securities laws: the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Securities Act of 1933, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, the Investment Companies Act of 1940, the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Established by the 1934 Act after the 1929 Wall Street crash, it regulates securities markets and stock exchanges, can bring civil actions for breaches of its rules, and may pursue criminal prosecutions alongside law enforcement agencies. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) The CFTC, an independent federal agency, regulates futures and option markets. Its role is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation and abusive practices related to the sale of commodity and financial futures and options, and to foster open, competitive and financially sound futures and...

Archived: This archived Practice Note gives corporate lawyers a concise overview of the principal features of corporate governance in the United States. In the context of directors’ duties, board organisation, the functions of the Chair, CEO and non-executive directors, committee composition, nominations and executive remuneration, it reviews the legislative and regulatory sources of governance obligations. Where appropriate, it references the listing rules of the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ stock market. It places particular emphasis on the significant effects of the Dodd-Frank Act. It also highlights key proxy organisations and institutional investor groups within the USA corporate landscape. This Note is not maintained and is provided for background purposes only. Background Unlike the UK, the USA has not implemented a single corporate governance code for public corporations. Instead, governance requirements arise from a range of federal and state laws, including: the laws of the state of incorporation and any other states in which the corporation operates, such as the Delaware General Corporation Law...

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the data protection implications of establishing a global corporate whistleblowing scheme. To deliver effective corporate governance, companies need dependable ways to spot and remedy unlawful or unethical behaviour within their organisations. One means of meeting this aim is to set up internal whistleblowing arrangements, giving staff a trusted, confidential route to raise concerns about misconduct. Worldwide, more national laws are obliging businesses to put in place internal financial control procedures—often realised through whistleblowing frameworks. The US sets the pace with rigorous expectations for internal reporting and investigation of suspected wrongdoing under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (SOX). For a US‑regulated multinational, designing a uniform corporate whistleblowing programme across every territory in which it trades can be challenging. In Europe, organisations must also reconcile their governance goals with protecting the privacy rights of individuals named through the operation of a whistleblowing scheme, especially where reports are submitted anonymously. A company active in EU jurisdictions...