Essay on Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 and Affect on Small Business

Another view is how small companies are being hurt by monopolies. Small businesses and bigger companies should be existing together. Each company, big or small, has different ways of doing things. For example, if someone gets home and tries to find something to eat. In a monopoly, only one choice is provided. Say the food is pizza and the pizza is great. It may be good for a while but after time one may find a taste in it that a person may not like. If there are many businesses then a person can have pizza, lasagna, mac-n-cheese, and other foods. In the market it is nice to have more choices so that one can find their favorite. Also, information received from Financiers of Small Businesses Receive Tax Breaks (2014), that small businesses have finally been earning money to put towards their stores and savings. Since money has been invested into these new companies, it has been working. This is causing these people to be able to make a living in owning a small company. Less small businesses are failing to support themselves and are able to make their businesses better. This just goes to show that even the government wants to keep small stores alive in America. If some of the most important and educated people think this is a good idea, shouldn’t others believe the same thing? Great people thought that monopolies were a bad thing then and they still are. Making a person’s own company gives people another job choice. The dream of being a small business owner is kept alive due to the government providing money to these companies and also keeps monopolies from taking these people with small companies, and crushing them so they can make more money. As explained in an article from Pugsley and Hurst (2011), “most small business have no intention of growing into a big company.” These companies just want to make

It is often recommended for (HCO)’s to have a corporate compliance plan to be more efficient, reduce errors, and not have small errors turn into large errors. As (OIG) it’s a necessary and fundamental need to incorporate a corporate compliance plan to have for staff and management to stay organized and lessen the chance of fraud, waste, and abuse in the company. Stated by, (Cleverly, Song, & Cleverly, 2011), it is effective only if it includes management support, effective communication, continuous monitoring, and individual accountability. All these aspects are a continual monitoring requirement as long the corporate compliance is in place for the duration.

As consultants for Ancher Public Trading (APT), Learning Team A would like to discuss the implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) legislation. This memorandum provides a brief history of SOX¡¦s creation, explains the relationship amongst the FASB, SEC and PCAOB, describes the pros and cons of SOX, assesses the impacts of SOX, and lists ethical considerations of SOX.

Despite impacting the national economy as well as investors, the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation also has had a considerable impact on information technology organizations. When in 2002 George W. Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation he noted that this is the most important and far-reaching reform that the United States has had since the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt (Damianides, 2005). The impact that the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation has had

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.

Between the years 2000 and 2002 there were over a dozen corporate scandals involving unethical corporate governance practices. The allegations ranged from faulty revenue reporting and falsifying financial records, to the shredding and destruction of financial documents (Patsuris, 2002). Most notably, are the cases involving Enron and Arthur Andersen. The allegations of the Enron scandal went public in October 2001. They included, hiding debt and boosting profits to the tune of more than one billion dollars. They were also accused of bribing foreign governments to win contacts and manipulating both the California and Texas power markets (Patsuris, 2002). Following these allegations, Arthur Andersen was investigated for, allegedly,

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) is a legislation enacted in 2002 under the sponsorship of U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and U.S. Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH). The law introduced increased government oversight for publicly held companies. It also imposes additional management responsibilities and corporate operating costs on companies trading under SEC regulations. Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted in direct response to a number of corporate accounting scandals, including those of Enron, Tyco International, and WorldCom.

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.

          Title III of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is Corporate Responsibility. It creates many new obligations for CEOs, CFOs, and other senior executives. Title III requires that CEOs and CFOs must certify that they have reviewed annual as well as quarterly reports and that they contain no untrue information, material omissions, or misleading information. CEOs and CFOs are now responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls, plus reviewing their effectiveness within 90 days prior to financial reports. They must disclose any deficiencies or possible fraud. The CEO and CFO are required to give back any bonuses or sale of company securities, if the company must restate financial statements due to material noncompliance or misconduct. High-ranking executives are also now banned from trading company securities during pension fund blackout periods. Lawyers are now required to report any evidence of violations of securities law or obligations to either the CEO of the company or chief legal counsel. If a person violates the law and their conduct demonstrates an unfitness to serve, he or she can be banned from being an executive of a company (Sarbanes-Oxley).

Assume that you are a CEO of a medium-sized company that needs a significant influx of cash for several expansion projects. As the CEO, you must determine whether your company should remain private or go public. Some companies postpone going public due to the unpredictability of economic and market conditions. Consider the ramifications of both alternatives. Construct an argument for and against going public. Before providing your response, review the guidelines and regulations associated with going public by visiting Small Business and the SEC located at http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm.

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

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.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passes in 2002 in response to a handful of large corporate scandals that occurred between the years 2000 to 2002, resulting in the losses of billions of dollars by investors. Enron, Worldcom and Tyco are probably the most well known companies that were involved in these scandals, but there were a number of other companies guilty of such things as well. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed as a way to crackdown on corporations by setting new and improved standards that all United States’ public companies and accounting firms were and are required to abide by. It also works to hold top level executives accountable for the company, and if fraudulent behaviors are discovered then the executives could find themselves in hot water. The punishments for such fraudulence could be as serious as 20 years jail time. (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The primary motivation for the act was to prevent future scandals from happening, or at least, make it much more difficult for them to happen. The act was also passed largely to protect the people—the shareholders—from corporations, their executives, and their boards of directors. Critics tend to argue that the act is to complicated, and costs to much to abide by, leading to the United States losing its “competitive edge” in the global marketplace (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2014). The Sarbanes-Oxley act, like most things, has its pros and cons. It is costly; studies have shown that this act has cost companies millions of

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or SOX Act, was enacted on July 30, 2002. Since it was enacted that summer it has changed how the public business handle their accounting and auditing. The federal law was made coming off of a number of large corporations involved in scandals. For example a company like Enron was caught in accounting fraud in late 2001 when the company was using false financial statements. Once Enron was caught that had many lawsuits filed against them and had to file for bankruptcy. It was this scandal that played a big part in producing the Sarbanes-Oxley act in 2002.

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.