The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

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.

There is much more of an emphasis on training and certification of auditors to understand and be able to design processes that are in adherence to the SOX requirements (Michelman, Waldrup, 32, 33). These changes in accounting processes are just the beginning of the much broader and much more pervasive changes at the fundamental business level within companies. The changes required by SOX also force entirely new approaches to managing, reporting, sorting, and accessing financial information, often requiring new IT systems and processes as well. The coordination of IT systems and processes, accounting and reporting, and the definition of entirely new business processes are all happening at the same time in many publicly-held companies in the U.S. through even 2009. The exponential growth of Indian outsourcing companies who have expertise in Business Process Management (BPM) have correspondingly seen an increase in their business, as many smaller American publicly-held companies do not have the people or the expertise to get their processes, systems, IT plans and accounting and reporting functions in compliance with the SOX standard in any meaningful period of time (Radtke, et.al.) As a result, many accounting professionals also must manage outsourcing contracts with companies who specialize in BPM and SOX

This memorandum discusses a brief history of Pat, his wrongdoings and related action, and the response by the related law enforcement agencies.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Introduction2001-2002 was marked by the Arthur Andersen accounting scandal and the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. Corporate reforms were demanded by the government, the investors and the American public to prevent similar future occurrences. Viewed to be largely a result of failed or poor governance, insufficient disclosure practices, and a lack of satisfactory internal controls, in 2002 George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that became effective on July 30, 2002. Congress was seeking to set standards and guarantee the accuracy of financial reports.

The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act was passed by Congress in 2002 to address issues in auditing, corporate governance and capital markets that Congress believed existed. These deficiencies let to several cases of accounting irregularities and securities fraud. According to the Student Guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act many changes were made to securities law. A new federal agency was created, the entire accounting industry was restructured, Wall Street practices were reformed, corporate governance procedures were changed and stiffer penalties were given for insider trading and obstruction of justice (Prentice & Bredeson, 2010). Tenet Healthcare Corporation, one of the largest publicly traded healthcare companies in the US at the time, was accused

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

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 – its official name being “Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002” – is

On July 30, 2002, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was signed into law by President Bush. "The Act mandated some reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud" (SEC.Gov. 2013 P. 1). The SOX Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in response to numerous failures of the profession to fulfill its trusted role; to oversee the activities of the auditing profession (SEC.Gov, 2013. The auditing of financial statements is required for the protection of public investors; however the question that arises is whether or not all PCAOB members should be taken from the investments communities that use audited financial statements. The remaining of this

The time frame is early 2002, and the news breaks worldwide. The collapse of corporate giants in America amidst fraud and stock manipulations surfaces. Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth and later Adelphia are all suspected of the highest level of fraud, accounting manipulation, and unethical behavior. This is a dark time in history of Corporate America. The FBI and the CIA are doing investigations on all of these companies as it relates to unethical account practices, and fraud emerges. Investigations found that Enron, arguably the most well-known, had long shredding sessions of important documents and gross manipulation of stocks and bonds. This company alone caused one of the biggest economic

On July 30, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law by the acting President George W. Bush. The overall purpose of the Act was “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes.” (SEC, 2013) This Act mandated multiple amendments to improve corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures, and combat corporate and accounting fraudulent practices. One requirement of the Act involves a management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting to be included in the annual financial reports of a company. On July 30, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that CEO Marc Sherman and former CFO Edward L. Cummings of a computer equipment company named QSGI, Inc. are being charged with misrepresenting the state of its internal controls over financial reporting to external auditors and the investing public. Inadequate internal control within the company can be extremely detrimental because investors and lenders rely heavily on financial reports to make decisions. The incorrect records of QSGI enabled the company to maximize loans from their top creditor. This report will show how QSGI’s lack of internal controls hindered their ability to generate revenue and maintain one of the company’s operation centers.

In 2002, the Sarbanes Oxley Act was ratified to address critical challenges impacting the way all firms are reporting financial information. Since this happened, a variety of companies have been implementing these standards using different techniques. In the case of IT activities, these provisions are designed to enhance reporting and communication. To fully understand the impact of the law on IT requires examining if Sarbanes Oxley is not already embraced by these firms and identifying three areas that have yet to be resolved (in the form of questions). Together, these different elements will highlight the impact of the law on IT related activities.

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

There are many debates related to the cost and the benefits of the act. The supporters of this act claimed that it was absolutely essential and played a main role in rebuilding the public’s trust in the U.S. stock markets, and in strengthening the corporate accounting principles. On the other hand, the opponents argued that since SOX, the complex regulation, was enacted, U.S. financial service providers lost their competitive edge against foreign providers (Chan, Farrell, & Lee, 2008). The supporters of this act claimed that the benefits of SOX are greater than the cost and vice versa. Sarbanes–Oxley has been criticized as a very expensive regulatory overreaction (Coates, The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, 2007). Even though the benefits of SOX are great for investors and companies as a whole, a lot of people have claimed that the cost outweighs the benefits (Jahmani & Dowling, 2008). Public companies have to pay significantly increased audit fees and increased fees to implement and comply requirements of SOX. Since SOX, audit fees have been increased extensively because auditors are required to take more responsibility for their client’s audit reports and the requirements to comply with SOX are more comprehensive and time-consuming. As of Sarbanes Oxley Survey by Protiviti indicated that, sixty-seven percent of the 460 audit executives and professionals reported an increase in the hours that their firms dedicated last year to addressing SOX compliance

The purpose of this project is to identify measures of internal control that ensures compliance with Sarbanes Oxley Act Section 404 and how the costs of compliance may be used to add business value for shareholders. The key requirements of SOX include definition, documentation, implementation, and assessment of effective controls to ensure the integrity of corporate financial information and the prompt reporting of material events that may affect the financial performance of the firm (Moeller, 2007). A survey conducted by Audit Analytics showed that internal control over financial reporting weaknesses from 2004 to 2005 improved, but still had companies with material weaknesses in both years (Bedard, 2007). This shows there is a need for more identification for continuous improvement. Threats to accounting systems come from various sources and can destroy the relevance and reliability of financial information, if ignored (Beard, 2007). Because IT governance defines the IT structuring measures, and monitoring framework, it should include business value (Robinson, 2005) and, since corporate governance drives and sets IT governance (Lainhart IV, 2000) the corporate governance is required for compliance with SOX Section 404. According to (Peterson, 2004), IT governance is the key to realizing IT business value. With the high costs of compliance that include the possible needing additional software and hardware, consultant engagements, additional

Following the enactment of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, many U.S. companies implemented comprehensive policy-based internal controls frameworks. This approach focused on compliance with regulatory and accreditation requirements (e.g., SOX, HIPAA, PCI). Relying solely on a compliance-based approach has shortcomings; 1) it assumes that your policies and controls are actually addressing all emerging risks, and 2) often results in a large number of controls to assign, document, and audit.