The Sarbanes Oxley Act ( Sox ) For A Company

History of SOX - the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is legislation in response to the high profile financial scandals, such as seen with Enron and WorldCom. The purpose of this act is to protect shareholders and the general

The Sarbanes-Oxley is a U.S. federal law that has generated much controversy, and involved the response to the financial scandals of some large corporations such as Enron, Tyco International, WorldCom and Peregrine Systems. These scandals brought down the public confidence in auditing and accounting firms. The law is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes Democratic Party and GOP Congressman Michael G. Oxley. It was passed by large majorities in both Congress and the Senate and covers and sets new performance standards for boards of directors and managers of companies and accounting mechanisms of all publicly traded companies in America. It also introduces criminal liability for the board of directors and a requirement by

According to Terry Sheridan, in the article, SOX Compliance is Still a Challenge- and Costly- for Many Companies, she states that “Aside from external audit fees,

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was signed into law on July 30, 2002 by President Bush. The new law came after major corporate scandals involving Enron, Arthur Anderson, WorldCom. Its goals are to protect investors by improving accuracy of and reliability of corporate disclosures and to restore investor confidence. The law is considered the most important change in securities and corporate law since the New Deal. The act is named after Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland and Representative Michael Oxley of Ohio (Wikipedia Online).

The Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002 is the most important piece of legislation since the 1933 and 34 securities exchange act, affecting everything from corporate governance to the accounting industry and much more. This law was in direct response to the failure of corporate governance at Enron, Tyco, and WorldCom. The Sarbanes - Oxley seeks to bring back the confidence in all publicly held corporations to the shareholders, while placing more responsibility on CEOs and CFOs for the actions of the corporation. "Sarbanes - Oxley is more than just another piece of legislation - it has become synonymous with a new culture of corporate accountability and reform1." The SOX, as it has come to be known, covers a myriad amount of corporate

To execute this plan, it sets requirements for Executive Officers, guidelines for tipsters and procedures for all employees. Specifically, section 404 of SOX works towards fraud prevention by enforcing procedures. This section holds company management and their external audits accountable for regulating the internal controls, and ensuring any material weaknesses or deficiencies are disclosed. The requirements for proper disclosure includes reporting any material change that could change the mind of investor. The company should provide reasonable assurance that details accurately and fairly reflect actual transactions in the business, they comply with GAAP and they are finding unauthorized transactions in a timely manner. Keeping in mind, the primary purpose of the implementation and continual regulation of the internal controls is to prevent fraud. Without the presence of effective and reliable internal controls, companies are susceptible to fraudulent activities. The punishment for failing to provide of the required disclosures includes $5 million fine and up to 20 years in prison. In addition to the increase in severity of punishment, businesses have also felt the raising costs associated with section 404

a. Write a 1-2 page summary of the lecture and discuss the Sarbanes Oxley Act, Piercing the Corporate Veil and the Business Judgment Rule. Define and discuss what these terms mean and how they were applied to the scenarios in the lecture.

Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 by former president George Bush. Essentially to combat the Enron crisis. The Sox Act basically has regulatory control and creates an enviroment that is looking out for the public. Ideally this regulatory environment protects the public from fraud within corporations. Understanding, that while having this regulatory control at times the Sox requirements need to be tweaked or amended. Not only now but in the future as well. The main aspects of the Sox act are essentially looking out for our welfare as a consumer. Our government has the obligation to regulate

“Laws and regulations are established by governments to set minimum standards for responsible behavior — society’s codification of what is right and wrong” and to satisfy stakeholder’s concerns regarding companies’ abilities to act in an ethical fashion at all times (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013, p. 95). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was created following accounting fraud scandals of several companies, including the Enron Corporation and Worldcom (Ferrell et al, 2015). The Act was established to protect stakeholders and the public from accounting fraud. It has done a fair job of deterring fraudulent reporting (Langevoort, 2007); however, I do not think regulating legislation of any kind can completely prevent future ethical misconduct.

After major corporate and accounting scandals like those that affected Tyco, Worldcom and Enron the Federal government passed a law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act. This law was passed in hopes of thwarting illegal and misleading acts by financial reporters and putting a stop to the decline of public trust in accounting and reporting practices. Two important topics covered in Sarbanes-Oxley are auditor independence and the reporting and assessment of internal controls under section 404.

Sarbanes-Oxley is one compliance law that has significant differences in private and publicly held companies. Even though a best practice among both company types is to be SOX complaint it is not necessarily required in the privately held company’s case. There are a few that apply to both though a list of these include:

According to Wharton School study, most companies de-listed their shares in an attempt to avoid the high costs of complying with the SOX Act, with some smaller companies listing costs of as high as $500,000 to comply. Some companies, however, de-listed to avoid outside monitoring and scrutiny, leading the study’s authors to suspect that firms were not being managed in the most efficient way or that their compensation was excessive. The study found that some of the firms with “higher free cash flow and lower-quality accounting” were more likely to “go dark” – to deregister from the SEC and become private firms (AP, 2004). Independence of board members may also place hardships on smaller companies. Many publicly listed small companies have few board members, and the chief financial officer may act in the capacity of other positions. Smaller firms may not have the resources necessary to recruit qualified individuals to meet independence requirements.

      The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was enacted in July 30, 2002, by Congress to protect shareholders and the general

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.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 by Congress after a series of scandals involving companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco. This was passed because of shady transactions and misrepresented financial data which caused shareholders to lose millions of dollars and their trust in investing in public companies. It was passed to create new rules of accountability and accuracy for public companies.