<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PricewaterhouseCoopers Case Is A Game Changer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/</link>
	<description>The Business of the Big 4 Audit Firms</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 01:48:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; McKenna at American Accounting Assn. Public Interest Conference</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-154473</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; McKenna at American Accounting Assn. Public Interest Conference</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:34:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-154473</guid>
		<description>[...] But the court noted that the determination regarding exemption is one involving a controlling question of law, that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal from the order will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Therefore, Judge Karlton certified the matter for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But the court noted that the determination regarding exemption is one involving a controlling question of law, that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal from the order will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Therefore, Judge Karlton certified the matter for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Auditors Want Overtime: California Lawsuit Against PwC Could Change Model - Francine McKenna - Accounting Watchdog - Forbes</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-153647</link>
		<dc:creator>Auditors Want Overtime: California Lawsuit Against PwC Could Change Model - Francine McKenna - Accounting Watchdog - Forbes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 17:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-153647</guid>
		<description>[...] But the court noted that the determination regarding exemption is one involving a controlling question of law, that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal from the order will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Therefore, Judge Karlton certified the matter for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] But the court noted that the determination regarding exemption is one involving a controlling question of law, that there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and that an immediate appeal from the order will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. Therefore, Judge Karlton certified the matter for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; 2010 Year in Review: Securities Enforcement, Litigation &#38; Compliance</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-148297</link>
		<dc:creator>re: The Auditors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; 2010 Year in Review: Securities Enforcement, Litigation &#38; Compliance</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 21:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-148297</guid>
		<description>[...] Big 4 are subject to class action wage/overtime suits in the US.  In the California suit still pending against PwC they’re expecting a final decision from the 9th circuit appeals court early this year. In arguing [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Big 4 are subject to class action wage/overtime suits in the US.  In the California suit still pending against PwC they’re expecting a final decision from the 9th circuit appeals court early this year. In arguing [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francine</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-128568</link>
		<dc:creator>Francine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-128568</guid>
		<description>@SusanSwanson

Interesting.  Tell them next time to Google it.  Ha.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@SusanSwanson</p>
<p>Interesting.  Tell them next time to Google it.  Ha.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SusanSwanson</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-128447</link>
		<dc:creator>SusanSwanson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 02:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-128447</guid>
		<description>The  lawsuit question was not on an application, but I seem to remember it being on a previously completed extensive  background check.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The  lawsuit question was not on an application, but I seem to remember it being on a previously completed extensive  background check.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francine</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-127935</link>
		<dc:creator>Francine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 03:47:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-127935</guid>
		<description>@SusanSwanson

Why would you have to disclose it in a future job application?  

Keep in mind that being a part of a class in a suit like this is public information.  So like anything else that ends up on the internet, anyone searching for info on you for any reason can find it. It may not be the easiest thing to find, but it will be there.

Anyone else have any other comments on this question?

fm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@SusanSwanson</p>
<p>Why would you have to disclose it in a future job application?  </p>
<p>Keep in mind that being a part of a class in a suit like this is public information.  So like anything else that ends up on the internet, anyone searching for info on you for any reason can find it. It may not be the easiest thing to find, but it will be there.</p>
<p>Anyone else have any other comments on this question?</p>
<p>fm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SusanSwanson</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-127928</link>
		<dc:creator>SusanSwanson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 00:55:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-127928</guid>
		<description>A letter asking to join the class action overtime lawsuit for PwC in California was just received. If one is no longer an employee of PwC,and does not aspire to work for PwC in the future,  are there any repercussions for joining the suit? The only one I can think of would be that it would be necessary to disclose it on a  future job application,  if asked to do so. As apparently many letters were sent out, I have found several people asking this question on the forums, no one seems to have a good answer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A letter asking to join the class action overtime lawsuit for PwC in California was just received. If one is no longer an employee of PwC,and does not aspire to work for PwC in the future,  are there any repercussions for joining the suit? The only one I can think of would be that it would be necessary to disclose it on a  future job application,  if asked to do so. As apparently many letters were sent out, I have found several people asking this question on the forums, no one seems to have a good answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Francine</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-126489</link>
		<dc:creator>Francine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:04:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-126489</guid>
		<description>@Taryn

Thanks!  I will change links to new ones.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Taryn</p>
<p>Thanks!  I will change links to new ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Taryn</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-126487</link>
		<dc:creator>Taryn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-126487</guid>
		<description>Hi there - just wanted to let everyone know the link to Mr. Kershaw&#039;s bio has changed with KCR&#039;s new website (the one referenced above is a broken link).  His bio is located at http://www.kcrlegal.com/William-Kershaw.aspx and you can keep up with the status of the PwC case on KCR&#039;s site at http://www.kcrlegal.com/class-action-certified-against-pwc.aspx - last update was posted last month (7/6/10).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi there &#8211; just wanted to let everyone know the link to Mr. Kershaw&#8217;s bio has changed with KCR&#8217;s new website (the one referenced above is a broken link).  His bio is located at <a href="http://www.kcrlegal.com/William-Kershaw.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.kcrlegal.com/William-Kershaw.aspx</a> and you can keep up with the status of the PwC case on KCR&#8217;s site at <a href="http://www.kcrlegal.com/class-action-certified-against-pwc.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.kcrlegal.com/class-action-certified-against-pwc.aspx</a> &#8211; last update was posted last month (7/6/10).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://retheauditors.com/2009/03/19/pricewaterhousecoopers-case-is-a-game-changer/comment-page-1/#comment-32516</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 17:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://retheauditors.com/?p=1348#comment-32516</guid>
		<description>Has anyone heard any updates on the PwC case lately? KCR has had no updates since March and there is no other news out there that I can find. Just curious. Thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Has anyone heard any updates on the PwC case lately? KCR has had no updates since March and there is no other news out there that I can find. Just curious. Thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

