Sarbanes Oxley Federal Law

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

In the early 2000’s there were a series of financial scandals that took place by large companies such as Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. The impact of these scandals was significant. Investors lost large amounts of money. Employees of the scandalous companies not only lost their jobs but lost their life savings. The financial scandals that had taken place were so severe that an Act was created in response to them in hopes to prevent these scandals from happening. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, also referred to as SOX or Sarbanes-Oxley, was created by Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2002. The creation and passing of the act was so tremendous that “in the opinion of most observers of securities legislation” Sarbanes-Oxley was “viewed as the most important new law enacted since the passage of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934” (Ink.com 2008).

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

In this paper, I will be discussing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. I will divide the paper up into four sections: the history of the act, trace its implementation, discuss its impact on society, and analyze the efficiency of the act. The act itself is made of of 11 sections or “titles”. Each title is a major key point in the act which also goes into more depth by containing several sections within it. This paper will me going over all of the sections covered in the act, but will focus on the major sections that have proven this act to be efficient in its purpose and the negatives as well. This act has been quite controversial regarding its strengths and weaknesses, but it contains some key values that should be used as a

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).

Sarbanes-Oxley is an Act that was enacted in 2002. The enactment was undertaken by the United States Congress thus making it a federal law. In addition, this Act was supported by Michael Oxley and Paul Sarbanes, represents a gigantic change to government securities law (Franzel, 2014). The motivation behind the enactment was to ensure that there was a legal framework that could help deal with the increased number of major corporate and accounting scandals that had been witnessed in the United States. Various sections of this bill are concerned with the roles and responsibilities that have to be played by the board of directors.

The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, better known as SOX, was passed in response to the scandals that had plagued many companies, from WorldCom to Enron, in the US. SOX was intended to restore investor confidence, decrease fraud and mismanagement while enhancing transparency and corporate governance (Ernst & Young). With the passing of SOX, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) was established to oversee the auditing firms that allowed, whether knowingly or not, these companies to commit fraud and fraud the American people out of their life savings (Harris). With all laws, there will always be some successes and failures. With that you will also have some who feel the law needs to be repealed or be reevaluated to decrease the

In the aftermath of major scandals and bailouts in the United States, the world`s and the public’s confidence in public corporations, has been shaken. With the publicized scandals of Enron and other corporations in the United States, the faith in public corporations fell as fast as the stock market. Investors had no confidence in corporations or in their boards. Measures needed to be taken to form regulations to provide stronger accountability, to prevent these types of scandals from happening and to rebuild the confidence of investors. Corporate governance of publicly traded

The services provided by auditors can have a far-reaching influence. For many years, investors have relied on audited financial statements to make sound investment decisions. Thus, auditors are obliged to protect the interests of investors, taking on the role of gatekeepers (Kane, 2004). In recent years, countries around the world have witnessed examples of corporate fraud. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed by the US Congress in the wake of such scandals, is considered the most influential act with the greatest impact on auditing professionals. This is an example of a government’s attempt to halt corporate fraud by improving corporate governance and strengthening the function of auditing, as a means to restore trust. However, quality and integrity

The Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, Was established for public governance and financial reporting their obligations and redesigned accounts (Ferrell, Hirt, Ferrell 2009). I feel that this act was an important stepping stone in the right direction This would keep other companies from going down large sums of money. Sarbanes-Oxley was a good Act with in response to the financial scandals that plagued Enron and WorldCom. Before 2001, firms were not as closely monitored by investors, and were more likely to make decisions without any rules or regulation (Madura, Ngo 2010) The scandals of Enron and WorldCom shook consumer faith and confidence in the corporate management of private organizations. People, Customer, Employees lost a lot of trust from this

This paper provides an in-depth evaluation of Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is said to be promoted to produce change in the corporate environment, in general, by stressing issues of public accountability and disclosure in the financial operations of business. It explains how this is an Act that represents the government's and the Security and Exchange Commission's concern in promoting ethical standards in terms of financial disclosure in the corporate environment.

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

This paper will reviews the extent to which corporate governance acts as efficient tool to protect investors against corporate fraud, thus contributing to summarize the literatures on role of corporate governance on preventing occurrence of corporate fraud. In a more recent study, corporate fraud is part of earnings manipulation done outside the law and standards. Whereas, the activities covered by the terms earnings management (such as income smoothing and big bath) and creative accounting (or window dressing) normally remain within the regulations. In this regard, corporate governance mechanism, particularly effective boards,

In the light of various corporate scandals, regulatory bodies and corporate governance were placed under pressure by shareholders and stakeholders to form a tighter grip in governing corporation’s conduct. The obligations, roles and responsibilities of company’s stewards are under scrutiny of Corporations Act, listing rules, country’s code of corporate governance, ethics as well as social standards.

This review intends to explain the author’s U.S. corporate governance system. Moreover, it tries to explain the system and rules for making decision of the board of directors, managers, stakeholders, and shareholders. In “A Primer on Corporate Governance”, author Cornelis A. de Kluyver, dean of the University of Oregon, provides an explanation of the American system on corporate governance. De Kluyver writes this book for students and executives who wish to enter the world of management; that includes working or dealing with a board of directions in a corporation. This book intends to expand their knowledge of management and governance. The author starts by giving a summary on the history of the U.S corporate governance system. The first part of the book shows how important it is to keep a balance of power within the corporate governance. The second part of the book focuses on the responsibilities of the board, such as selection of CEO, risk management, strategy development, unexpected events and crises. Its purpose is to inform students and future executives of the importance of corporate governance and the function of the board of directors, because it seems that most people have received little to no formal training in these subjects.