Healthsouth Corporation: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The purpose of this memo is to provide you with information on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX Act) and to describe the importance of its implementation, per your request. The SOX Act was first introduced in the house as the “Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act of 2002” by Michael Oxley on February 14, 2002. Paul Sarbanes, a Democrat U.S. Senator, collaborated with Mr. Oxley, a Republican US Senator, creating significant bipartisan support. The SOX Act was enacted by the end of July 2002 in response to recent corporate accounting scandals. The twin scandals that were impetus for the legislation involved the corporations of Enron and WorldCom.

The main objective of the Sarbanes-Oxley act was to reduce fraud. So far that objective seem to have been obtain. Since SOX was enacted, there has not been a major domestic corporate financial scandal uncovered other than the options back-dating scandal that occurred before July 2002 (Jahmani & Dowling, 2008). It is a tax advantage because companies and investors are not losing money.

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.

SOX enactment is an act that was formulated as a result of corporate scandals from Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and Tyco. However, Congress succumbed to pressure from the public for the government to take action about the unethical behavior of company executives of publicly –traded companies. Thus, the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was to restore the integrity and public confidence in financial markets. During these scandals, there were flagrant disregard to Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP). For example, according to Washington Post (2005), WorldCom

Research shows that mandating SOX requirements for non-profit organizations will reduce fraud and increase corporate governance. One of the goals of the SOX act was to create transparency. Many nonprofit organizations have adopted one or more provision from the SOX act (Nezhina & Brudney, 2012). Analysis shows that nonprofit organizations reap the following benefits when they adopt provisions related to SOX:

Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) was created to address the reoccurrence the likes of the several major scandals of the past. The nature of those past years scandals made it clear that preventative measures was a possible way to prevent any future scandals. And the efficacy of Sarbanes Oxley Act, many people as well as companies believed that fraud is easy to prevent.

The Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 was legislated by Congress to restore reliability of financial statements with the objectives to raise standards of corporate accountability, to not only improve detection, but to also prevent fraud and abuse (Terando & Kurtenbach, 2009). Additionally, SOX was the response to general failure of business ethics such as the propagation of abusive tax shelters and greater aggressive tax avoidance strategies (Raabe, Whittenburg, Sanders, & Sawyers, 2015).

The development of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was a result of public company scandals. The Enron and Worldcom scandals, for example, helped investor confidence in entities traded on the public markets weaken during 2001 and 2002. Congress was quick to respond to the political crisis and "enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was signed into law by President Bush on July 30" (Edward Jones, 1), to restore investor confidence. In reference to SOX, penalties would be issued to non-ethical or non-law-abiding public companies and their executives, directors, auditors, attorneys, and securities analysts (1). SOX significantly transformed the procedures in which public companies handle internal

HealthSouth at the time was the biggest provider of outpatient surgery, diagnostic and rehabilitative health care services in the United States. The complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission alleged that since 1999 HealthSouth had inflated their earnings by approximately “1.4 billion dollars” in an attempt to exceed or meet Wall Street’s expectations. However, when he arrived in court it was alleged to be 2.7 billion dollar fraud at HealthSouth. In addition, the complaint alleged that Richard Scrushy “certified HealthSouth’s financial statements when he knew or was reckless in not knowing they were materially false and misleading.”(SEC WEBSITE) As a result of that complaint and charges were filed, Richard Scrushy was the first “top executive” in history to be tried under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, also known as the SOX Act, was created in response to the series of misleading and outright fraudulent activity of big business in 1990s (Lasher, 2008, p. 187). Multiple publicly-traded businesses raised up their stock prices by “publishing false or deceptive financial statements” (Lasher, 2008, p. 187). The most notable company to crash were Enron, WorldCom and Tyco. Eventually almost one thousand publicly traded companies restated their financial statements which resulted in almost $6 trillion of stock market value disappearing (Lasher, 2008, p. 187). In response to these events, Congress drafted and passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002.

I think that the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has been feasible in managing tricky financial reporting from major corporations. It has a much lower influence on the misappropriation of benefits. No law or Act have the ability to cover all human predisposition to endeavor relationships with good offense. The law made it harder to quote out of context the association's cash related affairs and made the results more extraordinary (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). SOX have increased auditor’s vigilance and tightened management's responsibility for reporting misappropriating assets (Church & Shefchik, 2012). Here are two reasons I trust SOX was successful. First, this Act was powerful enough to cause chief executives to consider money

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

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.

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.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted into law in 2002 in the wake of corporation financial reporting scandals involving large publicly held companies. SOX instituted new strict financial regulations with the intent of improving accounting practices and protecting investors from corporate misconduct. SOX requires corporate executives to vouch for the accuracy of financial statements, and to institute and monitor effective internal controls over financial reporting. The cost of implementing an effective internal control structure are onerous, and SOX inflicts opportunity costs upon an enterprise as executives have