The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Case Study

In this paper, we will be discussing how Sarbanes Oxley has affected the American business and if it has accomplished its goals. The goal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) is to convey confidence in the stock exchange, but it does not defer all immoral activities that take place on the stock exchange. People no matter the law, are responsible for the quality of their work and are accountable for the integrity of themselves and their company. Their own ethical values can take precedence over those set by Sarbanes-Oxley. Not all values are equal in quality, and a person may go above the rules delegated by Sarbanes-Oxley, however, there is another side. Sarbanes-Oxley has created a fear among business practitioners that this new set of standards

The audit profession is a relative new comer to the accounting world. The Industrial Revolution, with the growing business sector, was the spark that resulted in auditing techniques being sought out and utilized. Initially, audit techniques and methods were adopted by companies to control costs and detect fraud, which is more closely aligned with internal auditing. However, the need for mandatory oversight of public companies was recognized after the great stock market crash of 1929 (Byrnes, et al., 2012). This brought about the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 creating the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At that point, the SEC was tasked with

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.

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

Despite major loses, the companies grew because Enron essentially believed that “saying the right words, turning around three times and throwing salt over your shoulder could somehow transform something without economic substance into something with economic substance. (SEC Historical Society)” Due to this misleading and fraudulent act, shareholders lost billions of dollars when the companies crashed and the share prices went down with it (Citeseer). After uncovering several scandals from companies such as Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco, people found it difficult to trust and invest in companies again. As a result to this unforeseen and unethical scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed on July 25, 2002. The House approved this act with a vote of “423 in favor, 3 opposed, and 8 abstained”, showing a unanimous favor in the necessity and practicality of the 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 two regulatory requirements that my financial institution must consider before going public are The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is a law that requires financial institutions to explain their information sharing practices to their customers and to protect sensitive data. There are three requirements for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the first is that insurance companies, banks, and brokerage companies are required to secure stored personal financial information. Next the company must advise you on their policy on sharing vital information. The final requirement is that the company has to give the consumer the option to choose whether they want their personal financial information shared.

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

I think that the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has been feasible in managing tricky financial reporting from major corporations. It has a much lower influence on the misappropriation of benefits. No law or Act have the ability to cover all human predisposition to endeavor relationships with good offense. The law made it harder to quote out of context the association's cash related affairs and made the results more extraordinary (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). SOX have increased auditor’s vigilance and tightened management's responsibility for reporting misappropriating assets (Church & Shefchik, 2012). Here are two reasons I trust SOX was successful. First, this Act was powerful enough to cause chief executives to consider money

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.

Many benefits came out of the creation of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002, one being less fraud occurring within companies. Companies like Enron were a main reason for the creation of the Act. Enron was reporting huge numbers in profits, but on the flip side the company was going further and further into debt. “Between 1996 and 2000, Enron reported an increase in sales from $13.3 billion to $100.8 billion.”(Ackman, D. (2002, January 15) .What Enron did was covering up the losses they had with putting them up profits. This caused major fraud to be committed within the company. To report a large sum in profits should be cause for some questions to be asked. But before Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put into place, so

Part of the daily routine during childhood is learning the difference between right and wrong, and a child’s behavior will change as they grow older, which proves they understand being dishonest or lying is wrong and there will be consequences to pay. Regardless of a person’s surroundings, they should never put their integrity in jeopardy, however, more often than not greed prevails as the winner. Most people do not accept a position within an organization looking to become rich, seek sexual favors, or be corrupt. The temptation is in every organization and those who cannot resist temptation become Gonin, Palazzo, and Hoffrage (2012) the actors, who fill the role and offer solutions through their evil persuasiveness demeanor. These types of people are the reason for the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act and more government regulations on businesses and money deals. Those who keep their

In 2001, during a federal investigation into the bankruptcy and implosion of Enron, it was found that the high-level executives at Enron were involved in a number of fraudulent activities like corporate, and accounting fraud, and corruption. This scandal is known as the Enron Scandal and as a result the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was formed and was passed in 2002. This law requires United States publically traded companies to be more transparent and required upper-level executives so approve all financial statements before releasing them to the public.