1.What is SOX compliance – only part related to IT?
952873
all depends if you are in boston or chicago
560148
How's this?\n\nhttp://www.cfp.net/certificants/sponsor_result_alphaorder_detail.asp?OrgKey=%7B5B72154F-3E7D-4EDB-9747-F2E50194A4B4%7D
625110
Sarbanes-Oxley compliance
421884
They might have it in the footnotes somewhere, or it might be listed in the text, but that's kind of rare.  Worse case, you could probably email/call up their investor relations department and just ask.
295824
These sites will help you out.\nhttp://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/official_info/official_rules/foreword.jsp\nhttp://www.answers.com/topic/baseball-rules
476228
You can't strip stats from the books because it will create continuity problems and holes in the way we look at accomplishments.   Stats are the major way we record baseball history.. The problem with steroids and other devices used to create an advantage over your opponent, it makes the honorable player suspect. Everyone who is good must be cheating.  Baseball should follow the I.O.C.'s logic and penalize for perception not proving beyond a shadow of a doubt.  Sports are not the legal system and need to show that they are beyond reproach and cheating.  It should fall to the individual player to know what medication he/she is taking and realize that it is their career and reputation at stake every time they use something on themselves internally or externally.
493933
You need to check either the SEC web site, the PCAOB web site, or possibly others...your question is too broad to answer in any detail
260837
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION \n17 CFR PARTS 228 and 229 \n\n[RELEASE NOS. 33-8177A; 34-47235A; File No. S7-40-02] \n\nRIN 3235-AI66 \n\nDISCLOSURE REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 406 AND 407 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002; CORRECTION \n\nAGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission. \n\nACTION: Corrections to final regulations. \n\nSUMMARY: We are making technical corrections to rules adopted in Release No. 33-8177 (January 23, 2003), which were published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2003 (68 FR 5110). The rules implement Sections 406 and 407 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 by requiring disclosures regarding audit committee financial experts and codes of ethics. This document amends an instruction to the rule to clarify that disclosures regarding audit committee financial experts are required only in annual reports. \n\nEFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 2003 \n\nFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Be, Special Counsel, Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 942-2910, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0312. \n\nSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: \n\nI. Background\nOn January 23, 2003, the Commission adopted,1 among other things, amendments to Item 401 of Regulations S-K and S-B.2 These rules require disclosure of whether a company has an audit committee financial expert, as defined in the rule, serving on its audit committee. \n\nSubsequent to the adoption of the amendments, questions arose regarding whether the disclosures required by the new disclosure item must be provided in registration statements under the Securities Act of 19333 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.4 Although the discussion of these provisions in the adopting release makes clear that such disclosure is required only in a company's annual report, the new disclosure item did not clearly state that such disclosure is required only in annual reports. \n\nAccordingly, the amendments set forth in this document clarify that the rules require disclosure of whether a company has an audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee only in an annual report. Although this disclosure is not required in any document other than the annual report, a company may, at its discretion, include the audit committee financial expert disclosure in its proxy or information statement and incorporate that disclosure into its annual report if it complies with applicable rules for incorporation by reference. The changes are technical corrections to clarify the rules as described in the original adopting release, and do not alter the forms in which the disclosure is required as described in the original adopting release. \n\nII. Need for Correction\nAs published, the final regulations contain errors which are in need of clarification. \n\nIII. Correction of Publication\nAccordingly, the publication on January 31, 2003 of the final rules (Release No. 33-8177) relating to the disclosure of whether a company has an audit committee financial expert serving on its audit committee and whether a company has adopted a code of ethics for its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer and controller, which were the subject of FR Doc. 03-2018, is corrected as follows: \n\n§ 228.401 [Corrected] \n\nOn page 5126, in the first column, paragraph 1 to Instructions to Item 401(e) of §228.401 is corrected to read as follows: \n\n* * * * * \n\nInstructions to Item 401(e) \n\n1. The disclosure under Item 401(e) is required only in a small business issuer's annual report. The small business issuer need not provide the disclosure required by this Item 401(e) in a proxy or information statement unless that small business issuer is electing to incorporate this information by reference from the proxy or information statement into its annual report pursuant to general instruction E(3) to Form 10-KSB. \n\n* * * * * \n\n§ 229.401 [Corrected] \n\nOn page 5127, in the third co
820226
this will answer all ur questions\nhttp://164.100.24.208/ls/abs%20series/index.htm
408001
I believe so.  MLB started a more comprehensive testing process last year, almost every player would be tested at least once during the season.  It's hard to take the chance (see the example of Palmero).  With the suspend games increased to 50 the first time, I beleve Barry Bonds won't take the chance - that would cost him almost one-third of the salary.
932283
I don't know the full scope of Sarbanes-Oxley and what it is accomplishing in the grand sceme of things.  I will tell you that it is creating TONS of extra work for organizations and implementing it is really bogging down companies...making them drown in implementing process and controls.  What this is attempting to do isn't a bad thing...it's just really impacting the productivity of American companies in a negative way.
754833
When you report seems to depend on which compliance group you are in, but it seems that its every 3 years.  \n\n"California's attorney membership is divided into 3 compliance groups. Compliance periods for the three groups are staggered, so that each group reports compliance in a different year. Compliance periods are 36 months (3 years) in length."\n\nYou could just call them up or send them an email just to get it from the horse's mouth...
469125
A link to a protocol from Alpco Diagnostics:\n\nhttp://www.alpco.com/pdfs/30/30-2201.pdf
1010980
Sorry pal,\n\nas a white sox fan I have taken an oath to never divulge the secret location of the curse-breaking talisman. We have gone through great lengths over the years to hide it from cub-nation.\n\nOur work almost came undone when the red sox found out its where abouts, but we made a deal to let them use it in 2004 if they make a promise to never let the cubs ever know of its sacred resting place.\nso too bad.\n\nbut hey,\n\nthere's always next year right?...
394575
You're wrong... up untill about 1998 or so the balls had their respective league president's signature. For example, If there was a game being played at fenway, all the balls would have the signature of the AL president.
174037
Call or go to SOX (Sign on the X .com) and ask for Heidi Tweedt. They have a national signing service that yo can be a part of. They contact you if you're in the zip code for a particular client who needs o be signed for a mortgage loan. You can get a significant amount of extra business from it!
1137001
There is a point of law which states that "you knew or should have known".  For instance, as a CFO, you have the legal obligation to know if a financial statement is fraudulent, even if you didn't prepare it.  Under the SOX act of 2002, you can be jailed for signing a financial statement if is is false, even if you didn't know it was false.  This puts the burden on the CFO to  actually do his or her job.\n\nThe same goes for HR executives.  If someone is being harassed, they are responsible for taking action.  If they don't, they can be personally sanctioned.