Implication Of Section 201 Of The Sarbanes Oxley Act Case Analysis

Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002 to restore investor confidence by requiring public companies to strengthen corporate governance through several mechanisms, including enhanced disclosure on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting (ICFR). As claimed by regulators, the disclosures on the effectiveness of ICFR are aimed at improving the quality of financial reporting, which would, in turn, reduce the information asymmetry for investors in U.S. capital markets” (Donaldson). Sarbanes- Oxley named after its creators, Senator Paul Sarbanes, D-Md and Congressman Michael Oxley, R-Ohio. Enacted in 2002 with the purpose to crack down on corporate fraud. The implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley led to the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) to oversee the accounting industry. It was created to eliminate corporate fraud, and it put in place a ban on company loans to executives while also giving job protection to whistleblowers. Before SOX was put into place the accounts were a self-regulated profession, such as medical professionals and lawyers. This is what led to the fraudulent actions of major institutions, people can be greedy, and they need checks and balances to ensure the fidelity of the firm. There are criminal enhanced penalties for corporate fraud and related misdeeds, this brings justice to the sector as well as working as a deterrent for additional immoral

The chances of failures can be decreased by executing the checks on the systems. These keep an eye on the systems preventing risks from occurring, and these checks are avoided as the interior controls. The motivation behind the inner controls is to keep the organization safe from risks associated with the modernized accounting-system risks. Organizations change their manual accounting systems to computerized accounting systems for different reasons, this incorporates the points of interest, and the explanation behind utilizing electronic accounting information is instinct. The organizations embrace the policies of their

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

Relevant professional standards for this assignment are AU Section 230 “Due Care in the Performance of Work,” AU Section 326 “Evidential Matter,” AU Section 330 “The Confirmation Process,” and AU Section 339 “Audit Documentation.”

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.

An effective system of internal control must be built on the basis of the analysis of enterprise-wide risks. Therefore, to create value for its customers and other stakeholders, an organization must have in place the ability to systematically assess and analyze all material risks that affect the entity’s planned objectives. (Integrated Framework, Volume II Guidance, June 2008). Internal control of the accounting process is designed to detect unintentional data errors rather than intentional errors. Garbage in, garbage out! Even good accounting systems can not catch

The United States has one of the biggest and fastest growing economies of the world. Our financial system has been affected by numerous crises throughout the years and as a result Congress has reacted in the most recent times and two well-known acts have been signed into laws by the presidents at the time to protect investors and consumers alike. A brief overview of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a discussion of some of the provisions therein, opinions of others regarding the act and also my personal and professional opinion will be discussed below. The same will be examined about the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was devised and designed to protect shareholders, as well as the public, from errors in corporate accounting and fraudulent business practices. All publicly traded companies, no matter their size, are required to comply with the terms of the Act. The Act was not only created to regulate corporate business practices, but also was created with the intention to help gain back the public’s trust in large, publicly traded corporations. The Act helps the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) in regulating companies and making sure these

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).

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.

of theses groups in the distribution of community services. Connors general closing molds that it

The act is an exhaustive piece of legislation that contains eleven major section and some of the most important titles outline requirements on auditor independence, analyst conflict of interests, corporate responsibility, enhanced financial disclosures, internal controls assessment, and corporate fraud accountability (Bainbridge, 2007). One of the main benefits of the legislation is to establish auditor independence requirements and rules for the prevention of conflicts of interest in particular by prohibiting auditing firms from offering other services. Prior to Sarbanes–Oxley, the auditing professionals were self-regulated and the decisions that controlled the industry, such as violation of ethical standards, were made largely by auditors themselves (Verschoor, 2012). In order to prevent conflict of interests, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act grants the PCAOB authority to oversee and regulate auditing firms, conduct investigations, and impose disciplinary sanctions against accounting firms (McDonough, 2004). Another provision of the Act is requiring senior executives to be personally accountable and responsible for the financial information reports by certifying that the information is correct.(Welch, 2006). A byproduct of the law implementation is a significant quality improvement on accounting practices;

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was a piece of legislation enacted by the United States Congress with the intent “to improve corporate governance and restore faith of investors” (Hanna, 2014). I have studied this act in my accounting courses, and the primary reason the act seems to have been implemented is due to the various accounting scandals involving major corporations at the time, such as Enron and WorldCom (Hanna, 2014). The United States economy was still recovering from the dot-com bubble that burst in the late 1990s (Hanna, 2014), and a mild recession that occurred during 2001. Thus, the major accounting scandals that were causing large corporations to fold further shook investor confidence. In my opinion, if it weren’t for this act, many investors would have abandoned the stock market permanently or at least restricted their investments to highly conservative blue chip companies, hindering the ability for other companies to raise capital for growth.

Auditors should always evaluate the design and test the operating effectiveness of a company’s internal control. The key procedures of the evaluation of design are fulfilled by inquires, observations, and inspections. The same procedures can be used to test the operating effectiveness as well.

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