The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002

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.

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

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002Introduction2001-2002 was marked by the Arthur Andersen accounting scandal and the collapse of Enron and WorldCom. Corporate reforms were demanded by the government, the investors and the American public to prevent similar future occurrences. Viewed to be largely a result of failed or poor governance, insufficient disclosure practices, and a lack of satisfactory internal controls, in 2002 George W. Bush signed into law the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that became effective on July 30, 2002. Congress was seeking to set standards and guarantee the accuracy of financial reports.

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

In reaction to a number of corporate and accounting scandals which included Enron Congress passed The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) (Sarbox) also known as the "Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act” and the "Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act" was enacted July 30, 2002. The Sarbane-Oxley Act is a US federal law that created new and expanded laws regarding the requirements for all US public company boards, management, and accounting firms. The act has a number of provisions that apply to privately owned companies. The Act addresses the responsibilities of a public corporation’s Board of Directors, adds criminal penalties for misconduct, and requires the SEC to create regulations that define how public corporations are expected to comply with the law. The SOX increases the penalties a company pays for fraudulent financial activity, and requires top management to provide individual verification to certify the accuracy of financial information, while also increasing the oversight role of a company’s Board of Directors and the independence of outside auditors.

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;

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.

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.

The first title of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 relates to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) division. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provided for the creation of PCAOB as an oversight organization to regulate the methods and procedures for auditors while they are performing an audit on a publically traded company. PCAOB is in charge of registering auditors that will be participating in publically traded company audits in addition to monitoring the quality of the audit work that is produced. PCAOB also establishes guidelines and directives that are applicable to all publically traded company audits. Lastly, PCAOB not only monitors the work and actions of independent audit firms, they sanction and enforce disciplinary measure against firms

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

There have been several breaches of ethical conduct since the passing of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Act was placed into law to protect the consumer against fraudulent activity by organizations. This paper will provide a brief history of the law and discuss some of the ethical components and social implications on corporations. This research will provide information on how the Sarbanes-Oxley Act affects smaller organizations and how it encourages employees to inform of wrong doings.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was a piece of legislation enacted by the United States Congress with the intent “to improve corporate governance and restore faith of investors” (Hanna, 2014). I have studied this act in my accounting courses, and the primary reason the act seems to have been implemented is due to the various accounting scandals involving major corporations at the time, such as Enron and WorldCom (Hanna, 2014). The United States economy was still recovering from the dot-com bubble that burst in the late 1990s (Hanna, 2014), and a mild recession that occurred during 2001. Thus, the major accounting scandals that were causing large corporations to fold further shook investor confidence. In my opinion, if it weren’t for this act, many investors would have abandoned the stock market permanently or at least restricted their investments to highly conservative blue chip companies, hindering the ability for other companies to raise capital for growth.

Following these series of failures, SOX was enacted to restore investor’s confidence which was rattled and to prevent accounting frauds in the future with improved corporate governance and accountability which all public companies must comply. SOX was named after Senator Paul Sarbanes and Representative Michael G. Oxley, who were the main drafters of the Act. It was approved by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President George W. Bush on July 30, 2003. Lack of ethics and integrity seem to be the key factors that caused accounting fraud. SOX revised the framework for the public accounting and auditing profession, provided guidance for better corporate governance and created regulations to define how public companies are to comply with the law. Although many have questioned whether SOX is actually effective to prevent frauds like Enron and WorldCom in future, it is considered to be the most extensive legislation related to publicly- traded companies and external independent auditors since the 1930s. President Bush called it “the most far reaching reforms of American Business Practices since the time of Franklin Roosevelt” (BUMILLER, 2002). The purpose of this paper is to determine whether or not Sarbanes Oxley’s regulations will be effective in preventing another financial statement fraud like Enron and WorldCom.

LBJ Company has plans to go public, and the president requested an evaluation from our firm to understand the new rules of regulations. First of all, the firm will analyze rules that affect company’s transition from private to public. Second of all, LBJ Company should understand all internal controls system the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 enforced. This act requires that companies must maintain an acceptable internal controls systems. Also, it protects companies from corporate fraud by ensuring that these companies follow and apply specific procedures. All member of corporations should make sure that these controls are adequate and reliable. Furthermore, following the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, companies are more likely to attract investors