Bell Nunnally Partner Jeffrey J. Ansley is quoted in the Law360 article “Attorneys React To High Court's Sarbanes-Oxley 'Fish' Ruling.” The piece details the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Yates v. U.S. that an anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not cover all physical evidence, including, in this particular matter, fish.
Ansley commented:
“Sarbanes-Oxley was designed, in part, to protect investors from the impact of improper document destruction, restoring trust in the markets following Enron. The Supreme Court's split holding rightly rejected an expansive application of the concept of 'tangible object' within Section 1519. The court concluded the term refers to information, not to physical evidence such as discarded fish. The court rejected the government’s invitation to stretch Section 1519 beyond its moorings to an application far afield from its intended use — protecting investors from corporate and accounting deception. The court should be applauded for refusing to pound a square peg into a round hole.”
To read the full article, please click here (subscription required).
To view our COVID-19 Legal Services Resource Directory, please click here.
