Corporate Finance AIG Accounting Scandal Explained December 8th, 2012

The Enron and WorldCom scandals were arguably the incidents that permanently changed the procedures for accounting controls. In response to these incidents, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002 was passed. Once the knowledge of these scandals was made public, a number of subsequent accounting scandals were discovered in public companies such as Tyco International, HealthSouth, and American Insurance Group. In addition, a then-employee-owned company, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (dba PBS&J, now known as “Atkins North America, Inc.”), was also hit by a similar accounting scandal. Henceforth, a case study of PBS&J is presented where we will examine the fraudulent transactions that

In addition, associated with the misapplication of accounting methods, the financial industry has been plagued with one disaster after another involving numerous scandals from top leading American companies. Consequently, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 compromising eleven sections that are generated to insure the responsibilities of the company’s managers and executives. This act identifies criminal penalties for particular unethical practices and currently has new policies that a corporation must follow in their financial reporting. The following examples describe some of biggest accounting methods as a result of the greed and the outrage of the ethical and financial misconduct by the senior management of public corporations.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act and the Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush as a direct response to the corporate financial scandals of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International (Arens & Elders, 2006; King & Case, 2014;Rezaee & Crumbley, 2007). Fraudulent financial activities and substantial audit failures like those of Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young had destroyed public trust and investor confidence in the accounting profession. The debilitating consequences of these perpetrators and their crimes summoned a massive effort by the government and the accounting profession to fight all forms of corruption through regulatory, legal, auditing, and accounting changes.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was implemented and designed to “protect the interests of the investing public” and the “mission is to set and enforce practice standards for a new class of firms registered to audit publicly held companies” (Verschoor, 2012). During the early 2000 's, the world saw an alarming number of accounting scandals take place resulting in many corporations going bankrupt. Some of the major companies involved in these scandals were from Enron, WorldCom, and one of the top five accounting and auditing firms, Arthur Andersen. These companies were dishonest with their financial statements, assuring the public the company was very successful, when in reality they were not. This became a problem because if the public believes a company is doing well, they are more likely to invest in it. That is to say, once these companies were exposed, it caused a number of companies going bankrupt and a major mistrust between the public and the capital market. Consequently, the federal government quickly took action and enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, also known as SOX, which was created by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Many have questioned what Norman Bowie (2004) had questioned,

The Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 is the most important piece of legislation since the 1933 and 34 securities exchange act, affecting everything from corporate governance to the accounting industry and much more. This law was in direct response to the failure of corporate governance at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. The Sarbanes - Oxley seeks to bring back the confidence in all publicly held corporations to the shareholders, while placing more responsibility on CEOs and CFOs for the actions of the corporation. "Sarbanes - Oxley is more than just another piece of legislation - it has become synonymous with a new culture of corporate accountability and reform1." The SOX, as it has come to be known, covers a myriad amount of corporate

A lot has been made, perhaps without justification, of the July 30, 2002 passage of H.R. 3763, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley" or The Act). Having read the Act, I suspect that the great praise is unfounded. I intend to address three issues presented within the act. First, I will address stock options as considered (or neglected, as the case may be) by Sarbanes-Oxley. Second, I will address the creation of a Commission designed to oversee audits and corporate accounting practices, and the potential efficacy of this Commission. Finally, I will address the modifications to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as it relates to corporate fraud.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act was a game changer for corporations all across the United States. Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley Act, big name companies such as Enron, Kmart and Tyco were more inclined to have fraudulent activities happen internally. Having all these issues arise during the last decades, Congress was anxious to act and create Sarbanes-Oxley Act with the intentions to protect investors and have strict reforms to deter internal financial frauds from occurring again. Although, this reform has had a great amount of success in achieving its goals, it also has some holes that were not well though out, when it comes to the entirety of it. The main problem with Sarbanes-Oxley is the cost it has on smaller companies, which shifted the power from the investors and into the auditors. (Prince, 2005)

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, also known as SOX in short, is a U.S. Federal Law passed by President George Bush. The main reason behind passing of the law was that the government needed improved regulations mandating upper management to confirm the reliability and transparency of the financial statements. This bill came about because of the failure and malpractice by companies such as Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Arthur Anderson. These companies caused a major scandal where investors lost billions of dollars resulting in the public losing confidence in the U.S. Securities Market. “The Act mandated a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud, and created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, also known as the PCAOB.”[1] The act includes 11 sections that are enforced by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act came to existence after numerous scandals on financial misappropriation and inaccurate accounting records. The nature of scandals made it clear there are possible measure that could be used to prevent future occurrence of financial scandals. And the existence and effectiveness of Sarbanes Oxley has caused

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from fraudulent corporate practices and accounting errors and to maintain auditor independence.   In protecting the shareholders and the general public the SOX Act is intended to improve the transparency of the financial reporting.   Financial reports are to be certified by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) creating increased responsibility and independence with auditing by independent audit firms. In discussing the SOX Act, we will focus on how this act affects the CEOs; CFOs; outside independent audit firms; the advantages and a

On March 19 of the year 2003, Securities and Exchange Commission brought the trading of HealthSouth to an end on the New York stock exchange, charging the company for inflating its earnings by more than 10 percent and overstated its profits by more than $2.5 billion between 1999 and 2002. HealthSouth’s trading reached to $30.81 in the year 1998, but ever since the trading of the company has been put to an end it reached to $3.91 per share. One week later, Owens pleaded guilty to changing and editing the company’s financial statements.

At the time the fraud existed, internal controls were almost non-existent. The management team employed a number of improper accounting practices that did not comply with GAAP. As stated earlier, CEO Dean Buntrock not only allowed internal controls to be bypassed, he encouraged them to be ignored and shaped accounting policy with the sole purpose of making the targeted earnings numbers every year. The auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, LLP, was also shown to have complicity. The partners at Andersen knew that the company’s policies were not compliant so they provided Waste Management with proposed adjusting entries to their books. Waste Management refused to make the adjustments so Andersen had Waste Management sign off on a list of 32 steps the company must do to change its practices. The document legally constituted an agreement among the two parties and clearly shows that Andersen was aware of fraud that Waste Management had covered up in the past. Furthermore, Andersen did not stand up to the company and continued to

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

These changes were outlined in the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). SOX completely revolutionized financial reporting, requiring senior management of firms to sign off on each financial statement that the company issues. It also stipulated that wrongful doing can result in not only termination but also imprisonment. SOX amplified the requirement for companies, requiring firms to maintain proper levels of internal controls when it comes to operating activities. SOX also established the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) which implemented stricter auditing standards for public accounting firms. Not only were accounting firms required to consider internal controls, but they were also required report any significant deficiency directly to the board of directors. SOX stressed the importance of internal controls, and within internal controls it established the need for segregation of duties. Since this time, there have been many additions to accounting policies regards segregations of duties, and many functions of the business process dedicated to it.

Sarbanes Oxley (also known as SOX) is legislation passed by the United States Congress in 2002, in the wake of a number of major corporate accounting scandals. Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, and others cost investors billions when their stock prices collapsed. As a result of SOX, top management must separately certify the accuracy of financial Furthermore, consequences for fraudulent financial activity are much more severe. Also, SOX intensified the management role of boards of directors and the independence of the external auditors who review the accuracy of corporate financial statements. The primary changes caused the formation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the assessment of personal liability to auditors, executives and board members and creation of the Section 404, which recognized internal control events that had not existed before the legislation.