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.

Depreciation and depletion are two models of computing financial reports. These techniques are used as adjustments when preparing statements of cash flow within the direct or indirect method. This paper will identify and examine the methods of depreciation and depletion, describe the difference between the methods, and compare and contrast depreciation and depletion as well using scholarly references to support the points.

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.

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.

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

Enron was one of the largest corporations in the United States. Enron was reporting revenues of over $100 billion, and its stock was being sold for $80 a share (Goethals, Sorenson, & Burns, 2004). However, it was using shady and unethical business practices, such as listing inflating its revenue and hiding debts in special purpose entities. Eventually, their faulty accounting caught up with them, and their market share plummeted. This was credited as one of the worst auditing failures.

On July 30, 2002, The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was signed into law by President Bush. "The Act mandated some reforms to enhance corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures and combat corporate and accounting fraud" (SEC.Gov. 2013 P. 1). The SOX Act also created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) in response to numerous failures of the profession to fulfill its trusted role; to oversee the activities of the auditing profession (SEC.Gov, 2013. The auditing of financial statements is required for the protection of public investors; however the question that arises is whether or not all PCAOB members should be taken from the investments communities that use audited financial statements. The remaining of this

The time frame is early 2002, and the news breaks worldwide. The collapse of corporate giants in America amidst fraud and stock manipulations surfaces. Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth and later Adelphia are all suspected of the highest level of fraud, accounting manipulation, and unethical behavior. This is a dark time in history of Corporate America. The FBI and the CIA are doing investigations on all of these companies as it relates to unethical account practices, and fraud emerges. Investigations found that Enron, arguably the most well-known, had long shredding sessions of important documents and gross manipulation of stocks and bonds. This company alone caused one of the biggest economic

On July 30, 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law by the acting President George W. Bush. The overall purpose of the Act was “to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes.” (SEC, 2013) This Act mandated multiple amendments to improve corporate responsibility, enhance financial disclosures, and combat corporate and accounting fraudulent practices. One requirement of the Act involves a management’s report on internal controls over financial reporting to be included in the annual financial reports of a company. On July 30, 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that CEO Marc Sherman and former CFO Edward L. Cummings of a computer equipment company named QSGI, Inc. are being charged with misrepresenting the state of its internal controls over financial reporting to external auditors and the investing public. Inadequate internal control within the company can be extremely detrimental because investors and lenders rely heavily on financial reports to make decisions. The incorrect records of QSGI enabled the company to maximize loans from their top creditor. This report will show how QSGI’s lack of internal controls hindered their ability to generate revenue and maintain one of the company’s operation centers.

Another corporate accounting scandal that occurred in the United States before the Sarbanes-Oxley Act came into effect was the WorldCom scandal in 2002. Seventeen thousand employees were fired and $3.8 billion dollars in profit were removed from their accounting books after an internal audit discovered improper expense accounting in 2001 and 2002. This improper accounting inflated the cash flow so the company would not report a net loss, only a net gain (Hancock, 2002).

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.

New levels of auditor independence and personal accountability for CEOs and CFOs are provided by the Act. Additional accountability for corporate Boards, as well as increased criminal and civil penalties for securities violations, increased disclosure regarding executive compensation, insider trading and financial statements are also presented under SOX. (The Institute of Internal Auditors: “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002: Effect on Audit Committees at Organization Not Publicly Traded.” January 2004. Accessed May 31, 2012 from: http://www.itaudit.org/)

Prior to 2002, financial statement reporting for publically traded companies within the United States was overseen with far less oversight in comparison to current reporting standards and procedures. Appropriate financial reporting is merely one element that was not occurring prior to 2002. An element of corporate dishonesty and deception existed within some the largest publically traded companies and this idea of deceitfulness was perpetuated by the executive staff of the businesses. Enron’s financial disintegration became the facilitator for the need of more rigid financial oversight, but they were not the only company that added to the idea of corporate fraud.