Sarbanes-Oxley Of 2002 And Dodd-Frank (Section 922)

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.

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

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

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.

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

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted to bring back public trust in markets. Building trust requires ethics within organizations. Through codes of ethics, organizations are put in line to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public trust. Through defining a code of ethics, organizations can follow, market becomes fair for investors to have confidence in the integrity of the disclosures and financial reports given to them. The code of ethics include “the promotion of honest and ethical conduct, requiring disclosure on the codes that apply to senior financial officers, and including provisions to encourage whistle blowing” (A Business Ethics Perspective on Sarbanes Oxley and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was signed into law from public demand for a reform. Even though there are some criticism about it, the act still stands to prevent and punish corporate fraud and malpractice.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted to bring back public trust in markets. Building trust requires ethics within organizations. Through codes of ethics, organizations conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public trust. Through defining a code of ethics, organizations can follow, the market becomes fair for investors to have confidence in the integrity of the disclosures and financial reports given to them. The code of ethics includes the promotion of honest and ethical conduct. This code requires disclosure on the codes that apply to senior financial officers and including provisions to encourage whistle blowing, a Business Ethics Perspective on Sarbanes-Oxley and the Organizational Sentencing Guidelines. The Congress signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law in response to the public demand for reform. Even though there is some criticism of it, the act still stands to prevent and punish corporate fraud and malpractice.

Numerous scandals broke out in the early 2000s, losing the trust of investors in the public

According to the textbook, Sarbanes-Oxley Act is a federal statute enacted by Congress to improve corporate governance (Cheeseman, H. R., p.344). It was passed by congress that sets policy and regulates the accounting practices of U.S corporations.

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

The focus of this week’s assignment is the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002. A brief historical summary of SOX will be presented, including the events leading up to its passage. The key ethical components of SOX will be identified and explained. The social responsibility implications of the mandatory publication of corporate ethics will be assessed. One of the main criticisms of SOX has been its implementation costs, and this specific criticism will be addressed in regards to smaller organizations. Finally, potential improvements to the SOX legislation will be explored, based on existing research in this area.

In the history of the United States, we have experienced numerous financial crisis, where millions have been affected. Some of them include the great depression in 1929, World War II, and recently the financial crisis of 2008. The government has tried to learn from these past events and implement new procedures that would prevent from occurring once again. However, it seems like there is always something new to learn from when these type of events occurs. As such, the government always tries to addressed the issues, but in some instances are praised and in some criticized. Two of the most important legislature that have been passed in order to prevent financial crisis and protect the consumers and the economy of the United States are the

In his testimony concerning the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission William H. Donaldson says that the first year of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has produced an impressive record of accomplishments in an incredibly short period of time. The Act set ambitious deadlines for more than 15 separate rulemaking projects by the Commission to implement many of the Act's provisions. The Commission provided a number of opportunities for public input on its proposals, and thousands of letters of public comment in crafting final rules were carefully

Foremost, a company hires an auditor to preform an audit. He/she is paid $1,000,000 dollars for their services. In addition, the company is willing to pay the auditor an additional $700,000 for providing more services. This additional pay may stem from the auditor’s friendly relationship with the company’s management. This scenario could potentially cause a huge ethical dilemma for the auditor. Given the friendship between the two parties, the auditor could very well be tempted to “cook the books” by management. This could very well happen if the company needs to improve their company’s earnings. Friendship combined with lofty pay could easily persuade the auditor into disregarding the GAAP as well as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Furthermore, the nature of the job is highly unethical. As it violates several provisions of the aforementioned Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The auditor, management, and the top executives of the company will all be affected by this ethical dilemma.