Attorneys React To High Court's Sarbanes-Oxley 'Fish' Ruling

Law360, New York (February 25, 2015, 8:54 PM EST) -- On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not cover all physical evidence. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision in John L. Yates v. United States of America is significant.

Ross A. Albert, Morris Manning & Martin LLP

"Hoorah for common sense! This decision likewise represents a victory over the ever-expanding efforts of overly creative prosecutors to make federal crimes out of acts seemingly well beyond anything Congress ever actually considered when enacting a given statute. Here prosecutors managed to obtain a criminal conviction under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for the alleged...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!