Duty Of Loyalty: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In this paper, we will be discussing how Sarbanes Oxley has affected the American business and if it has accomplished its goals. The goal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) is to convey confidence in the stock exchange, but it does not defer all immoral activities that take place on the stock exchange. People no matter the law, are responsible for the quality of their work and are accountable for the integrity of themselves and their company. Their own ethical values can take precedence over those set by Sarbanes-Oxley. Not all values are equal in quality, and a person may go above the rules delegated by Sarbanes-Oxley, however, there is another side. Sarbanes-Oxley has created a fear among business practitioners that this new set of standards

The audit profession is a relative new comer to the accounting world. The Industrial Revolution, with the growing business sector, was the spark that resulted in auditing techniques being sought out and utilized. Initially, audit techniques and methods were adopted by companies to control costs and detect fraud, which is more closely aligned with internal auditing. However, the need for mandatory oversight of public companies was recognized after the great stock market crash of 1929 (Byrnes, et al., 2012). This brought about the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At that point, the SEC was tasked with

Throughout history and in our own time, legitimate accounting methods have been utilized to fraudulently engage in manipulating activities that results in illicit gains to the perpetrators and losses to individuals and financial institutions.

In the past, many corporate executive have committed various forms scandals in their organizations. Such fraudulent arts are unethical and immoral behavior. This led the US government to form legislation in order to control fraudulent activities; mostly performed by senior officers in the organization. In view of this, this paper will address the following: historical summary on SOX enactment, the key ethical components of SOX, social responsibility implications regarding mandatory publication of corporate ethics, whether the criticisms of SOX implication presents an unfair burden on smaller organizations and suggestions on the improvement of SOX legislation.

The Sarbanes-Oxley is a U.S. federal law that has generated much controversy, and involved the response to the financial scandals of some large corporations such as Enron, Tyco International, WorldCom and Peregrine Systems. These scandals brought down the public confidence in auditing and accounting firms. The law is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes Democratic Party and GOP Congressman Michael G. Oxley. It was passed by large majorities in both Congress and the Senate and covers and sets new performance standards for boards of directors and managers of companies and accounting mechanisms of all publicly traded companies in America. It also introduces criminal liability for the board of directors and a requirement by

The Sarbanes Oxley Act is an act passed by the United States Congress to protect investors from the possibility of fraudulent accounting activities by corporation. The Sarbanes Oxley Act has strict reforms to improve financial disclosures from corporations and accounting fraud. The acts goals are designed to ensure that publicly traded corporations document what financial controls they are using and they are certified in doing so. The Sarbanes Oxley Act sets the highest level and most general requirements but it imposes the possibility of criminal penalties for corporate financial officers. The Sarbanes Oxley Act sets provisions that are used throughout numerous amounts of corporations. It holds companies to a larger responsibility and a higher standard with accounting principles and the accuracy of financial statements.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush to “mandate a number of reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud” and applies to all public companies in the U.S., large and small (The Laws That Govern the Securities Industry, 2015). The main purpose of Sarbanes-Oxley is to “eliminate false disclosures” and “prevent undisclosed conflicts of interest between corporations and their analysts, auditors, and attorneys and between corporate directors, officers, and shareholders” (Neghina & Riger, 2009). As a whole, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is very complex and affected organizations must do their due diligence to ensure they

Prior to the advent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, referred to herein as “SOX,” the board of directors’ pivotal role was to advise senior leaders on the organization’s strategy, business model, and succession planning (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Additionally, the board had the responsibility for risk management identification and risk mitigation oversight, determining executive benefits, and approval of significant acquisitions (Larcker, 2011, p. 3). Furthermore, for many public organizations, audit committees existed before SOX and provided oversight of internal processes and controls. Melissa Maleske (2012) advised that the roles and responsibilities of the board were viewed “…from a perspective that the board serves management” (p. 2). In contrast, Maleske (2012) noted that SOX regulations altered the landscape “…to a perspective that management is working for the board” (p. 2). SOX expanded not only the duties of the board and the audit committee, but also the authority of these bodies (Maleske, 2012, p. 2).

White collar crime has been around for ages. Today more and more news stories can be found where the elite, the top executives of fortune 500 companies, are being prosecuted for participating in illegal activities. It was hoped that the passing of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2001 after the Enron debacle would reduce the amount of illegal acts being committed in corporate America. The Sarbanes Oxley act makes executives personally responsible for their activities requiring top management to sign off on financial statements stating they are true and accurate and these executives can face jail time for committing fraudulent acts. Unfortunately, immorality in business is still running rampant. One illegal practice we see happening in

In the wake of the major financial scandals, that occurred in 2001 and 2002 the United States Congress passed the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002. These financial scandals adversely affected the public’s trust in the stock market, therefore passing the SOX helped investors to regain trust in investing in the stock market. Prior to the SOX being passed “neither management or auditors of publicly traded companies were required to evaluate, audit, or publicly report on the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting” (Kinney & Shepardson,

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush; it was a congressional regulatory response to the enormously damaging corporate scandals at WorldCom, the Arthur Anderson accounting group and most notoriously, Enron. Because of the damage done not only to the reputations of those corporations and to the American corporate community but also to the stockholders and people who lost life savings (people who lost 401-K investments in the scandal), Congress had to take action to try and avoid scandals like these in the future. Hence, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was created and passed into law. Will it deter future criminal activity vis-à-vis corporate financial reporting? There is no guarantee that the Act will prevent future corruption, but this paper asserts that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a step in the right direction.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX Act, was enacted on July 30, 2002. Since it was enacted that summer it has changed how the public business handle their accounting and auditing. The federal law was made coming off of a number of large corporations involved in scandals. For example a company like Enron was caught in accounting fraud in late 2001 when the company was using false financial statements. Once Enron was caught that had many lawsuits filed against them and had to file for bankruptcy. It was this scandal that played a big part in producing the Sarbanes-Oxley act in 2002.

Has the U.S. Corporate Sentencing Guidelines or the Sarbanes-Oxley Act promoted ethical behavior by employees, or have firms only been interested in avoiding or reducing jail time for their executives?

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is legislation passed by the U.S. Congress to protect shareholders and the general public from accounting errors and fraudulent practices in the enterprise, as well as improve the accuracy of corporate disclosures (Rouse & Spurzem, 2013). SOX were established as result of huge organizations being involved in financial indignity that happened in the early 2000s at popular companies such as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco that effected investors trust. One of the advantages of SOX is that companies are forces to be accountable for their work. They are no longer allowed to mislead investors for their own gain. Those that carry the responsibility of reporting financial information are now being held accountable for the way they choose to use their knowledge. The disadvantages are it is a costly process. It is a strict rule with high consequences, but no solid guideline on how to implement the system the act encounters.

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