Satyam Scandal

As details of the Enron scandal surfaced public outrage grew, calling for action, accountability and consequences. Corporate governance began receiving renewed interest. Corporate governance is a multi-faceted subject that sets forth the rules and responsibilities of the relationship between the corporation and its stakeholders (Cross & Miller, 2012). This includes the company’s officers and management team, the board of directors, and the organizations shareholders.

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;

Section 201 prohibits any registered public accounting firm from providing the following non-audit services to audit clients: “bookkeeping or other services related to the accounting records, financial info systems design or implementation, appraisal or valuation services, fairness opinions, actuarial services, internal audit outsourcing services, management functions or human resources, broker or dealer investment advisor or investment banking services, legal services and expert services unrelated to the audit, any other service the board determines impermissible” (Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 2002). Section 202 requires the issuer’s audit committee to preapprove all auditing and non-auditing services that will be provided to the issuer (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 203 establishes mandatory and substantive rotation of audit partner and partner responsible for review of the audit every 5 years (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 204 needs the public accounting firm to report to the audit committee such as “critical accounting policies and practices, alternative accounting treatments within GAAP discussed with management and material written communications between auditor’s firm and management of the issuer” (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 206 prohibits the public accounting firm from providing audit services for the issuer if the CEO, CFO, CAO or any person serving in the equivalent capacity of

This paper will discuss the legislation that was enacted following these events. It is known as the Public Accounting Return and Investor Protection Act, better known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and has been enacted since the year 2002 (Mishkin, 2012, p. 158). This Act is applicable to all public companies within the US as well as any international companies who have securities within the US registered with the SEC ("The Vendor-Neutral Sarbanes-Oxley Site", 2012). In this paper, it will be discussed why Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted and the key specifications.

There were several large scandals in the beginning years of the 2000’s. The public had a lack of trust within the capital markets and investors who had invested their capital would soon find out that they had lost a substantial amount, as share prices decreased. Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael Oxley both came together and were part of creating legislation which would deter future scandals such as Enron, WorldCom, Tyco amongst other frauds that led the public lose trust in the markets- to never happen again. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is comprised of 11 sections, and one of them is the creation of the (PCAOB) Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, PCAOB definition “The PCAOB is a nonprofit

There are various sections of SOX that deal with the criminal penalties that have to be undertaken based on certain misconducts as well as the need for the Securities and Exchange Commission to come up with necessary regulations. These are meant to define and determine the manner in which public corporations have to comply with the relevant laws that underline the course of their operations. . A number of major accounting and corporate malpractices had been reported to have been perpetuated by the management teams of WorldCom, Enron as well as Global Intersection. In this context, there is going to be a comparison and a contrast of the views of accountants and management in scope of SOX in internal regulation. In addition, there is going to be an analysis the manner in which the changes facilitated by the Act have affected accounting firms,

In the process of Satyam Scandal, there are several governance principles involved a few key components.

This event was unprecedented. The seventh largest company in the United States disintegrated from an annually profitable company in business for over sixteen years to a company claiming to be bankrupt over a period of a few months (O’Leary). Ultimately, fraudulent accounting and misstatements of revenues and debt obligations orchestrated by the CEO, CFO, and other senior managers were to blame. These revelations roiled stakeholder trust in public companies' financial reporting, accounting methodology, and overall transparency. In addition to Enron’s admissions, their accountant and auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, was determined to have conspired to assist in the inflation of stated profits mainly by not disclosing Enron's money-losing partnerships in the financial statements (PBS). Arthur Andersen eventually surrendered the practices’ CPA licenses in the United States after being found guilty of criminal charges relating to the firm's handling of auditing for Enron

This research paper endeavors to expose how the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002 might have led to the accountability of holding corporate executives for their actions in the past and also in the future. The paper will examine and explore the genesis of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as well as give details on the act’s relationship to the ethics of the institution and the persons who work and manage the institution. The paper also proceeds to discuss different corporations around the globe that have been endorsed with the Sarbanes- Oxley Act and their subsequent benefits and demerits as opined by different individuals. The paper shall prove to be a relevant tool for any administrator managing a public company. Anyone going through this

Another thing that would have prevented the Phar-Mor scandal could have come from section 206, “Conflicts of Interest”. This was a big one because three of the members of the fraud team at Phar-More were former Coopers and Lybrand auditors which could have been used as conflicts of interest and at least one of those men had been with the company for several years and because he was hired more than a year before they were audited but was able to get out of it on a technicality. He later admitted to covering it up and misstatement was illegal.

An auditor’s role in an audit is very important. An auditor must be able to collect enough evidence to supports their finding, and also be on the lookout for fraud. Company’s may or may not know the law, but it is the job to know the law, and be able to educate and report findings properly. Since the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there have been provisions that have directly affected auditors. This paper will include the details of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, how ethics and independence have affected auditors, as well implementation of new standards based on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

There are requirements of many skilled persons from the accounting, auditing and Information technology to combine in bringing about the compliance of this provision. The current problem with the regulations in this act is that the act on being passed had set mandates for compliance with its requirements and deadlines are set. (Romano, 2005) The provisions of section 404 which has mandated the change therefore will have to be studied in the light of all these requirements.

Describe the governance structure at Satyam. What was the “tone-at-the-top” at Satyam during the fraud

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

This act modified the methods for many different subjects, such as financial and non-financial reporting, company communications with shareholders, and the responsibilities of company heads. The main role of the Act is to get managers to act in the best interests of shareholders. It additionally requires managers to think about the long-term effects of decisions; the welfares of the business’s staff; the business’s connections alongside suppliers, clients, and others; and the impression of the company’s procedures on the surrounding area. The Company Law Review Group was established by the government in 1998 in order to contemplate ways to modernize company law. The Company Law Review guidelines were the starting point for the modifications suggested by the Company Law Reform White Paper released in 2005. Then the White Paper proposals turned into an outline for a Bill, which then finally received official approval and passed in 2006, (companieshouse.gov.uk, 2014).