Worldcom Case

3 – Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) (source: PYP7-6 Kimmel textbook.) The PCAOB was created as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It has oversight and enforcement responsibilities over CPA firms in the United States.

Cynthia Cooper was contemplating over this whole debacle with what was the right decision to make with her discovering “almost four billion dollars in questionable accounting entries”. (Mead) While contemplating something crossed her mind on deciding if she should speak up and become known as a whistleblower, is that her findings could cost WorldCom’s credibility, about seventy thousand employees would lose their jobs, and also pension funds that were loaded with WorldCom stock. Her job as an internal auditor she had a responsibility to WorldCom’s Stockholders and also her own conscious to do something like as the fraud that was uncovered was so

First, Congress saw the need to create an independent body to oversee the audit of public companies that are subject to the securities laws. PCAOB was established to protect the investors and further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate, and independent audit reports for public companies. Before the SOX, The

Since the financial crisis investors have become less confident in the companies within the market. In order to restore confidence within the market and the audits of their financial statements Senator Sarbanes and Representative Oxley created the legislation known as the Sarbanes Oxley Act which came into effect in 2002. The legislation created major regulations on company financial reporting and the regulation of it. Forcing management to be accountable for the financial reporting and internal controls within their company and requiring the audit committees to report on their opinion of the company’s internal processes. (Soxlaw.com)

The PCAOB is responsible for providing independent oversight for public accounting firms. Auditors independence job is to limit conflict of interest and monitor the requirements of new auditor approvals. Corporate responsibility require that senior executives take sole responsibility for completeness and accuracy of all corporate financial reports. Last but not least, enhance financial disclosures assures the accuracy of financial reports and

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was implemented and designed to “protect the interests of the investing public” and the “mission is to set and enforce practice standards for a new class of firms registered to audit publicly held companies” (Verschoor, 2012). During the early 2000 's, the world saw an alarming number of accounting scandals take place resulting in many corporations going bankrupt. Some of the major companies involved in these scandals were from Enron, WorldCom, and one of the top five accounting and auditing firms, Arthur Andersen. These companies were dishonest with their financial statements, assuring the public the company was very successful, when in reality they were not. This became a problem because if the public believes a company is doing well, they are more likely to invest in it. That is to say, once these companies were exposed, it caused a number of companies going bankrupt and a major mistrust between the public and the capital market. Consequently, the federal government quickly took action and enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley act of 2002, also known as SOX, which was created by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Many have questioned what Norman Bowie (2004) had questioned,

Prior to the 2002 scandal of Enron, the standards for financial reporting were much more relax than the regulations that businesses encounter today. The Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002(SOX) came into play as a response to the unruly financial reporting to the public from companies such as Enron, Arthur Andersen, Tyco and WorldCom. The public scandals created insecurities for any American to invest in big companies, due to fear of additional fraud encounters. The Sarbanes Oxley Act was enacted to try create some trust between these big companies and the hardworking individuals who were investing in them. The fraud scandals were front page news stories and the government hoped that passing this legislation

Section 105 gives PCAOB authority to conduct investigations and obtain all relevant information. PCAOB also has the power to suspend auditors, revoke the registration of the accounting firms and impose penalties for violations or unwilling to corporate with an investigation (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 106 regulates foreign public accounting firms providing an audit report to an issuer and requires them to comply with PCAOB requests (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). Section 107 gives SEC oversight and enforcement authority over the PCAOB and its decisions (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA, 2014). This prevents PCAOB from gaining too much power over accounting regulation. Section 108 amends the Securities Act of 1933 to allow the SEC to have the authority to establish accounting standards, to adopt accounting standards established by a standard setting body that meets certain qualifications, such as the FASB. Section 109 calls for funding of the PCAOB and the designated accounting standard-setting body (FASB) to be funded from fees imposed upon public companies (Philipp, CPA, & CGMA,

The SOX Act crafted new standards for corporate accountability. The act also created new penalties for wrongdoing and fraudulent practices. These penalties included fines and time in federal prison. This law changed the way corporate boards and executives interact with each other and with corporate auditors. It removed the all-to-common defense of "I wasn't aware of financial issues" from CEOs and CFOs, holding them accountable for the accuracy of the company’s financial statements. In addition to the executives, the auditors who did the reports were also liable for the contents of the reports, and could be fined and jailed as well. This did away with another all-to-common defense of “I wasn’t aware of false reporting by the company.” The Act specifies new financial reporting responsibilities, including adherence to new internal controls and procedures designed to ensure the validity of their financial records. That is to say, checks and balances were put in to place so that a company’s accounting firm that produced financial statements could not also be an independent auditing firm for the same company. While this makes common sense, it was not a law, and a few

noted that this was not out of the ordinary at WorldCom. In your opinion, was this a proper

The development of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) was a result of public company scandals. The Enron and Worldcom scandals, for example, helped investor confidence in entities traded on the public markets weaken during 2001 and 2002. Congress was quick to respond to the political crisis and "enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was signed into law by President Bush on July 30" (Edward Jones, 1), to restore investor confidence. In reference to SOX, penalties would be issued to non-ethical or non-law-abiding public companies and their executives, directors, auditors, attorneys, and securities analysts (1). SOX significantly transformed the procedures in which public companies handle internal

The final responsibility for the integrity of an SEC registrant’s internal controls lies on the management team. U.S. companies need to refer to a comprehensive framework of internal control when assessing the quality of financial reporting to determine that financial statements are being presented under General Accepted Accounting Principles, GAAP. The widely used framework is referred as COSO, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, sponsored by the following organizations American Accounting Association, the American Institute of CPA’s, Financial Executives International, the Institute of Internal Auditors, and the Institute of Management Accountants. COSO’s defines internal control as:

These changes were outlined in the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). SOX completely revolutionized financial reporting, requiring senior management of firms to sign off on each financial statement that the company issues. It also stipulated that wrongful doing can result in not only termination but also imprisonment. SOX amplified the requirement for companies, requiring firms to maintain proper levels of internal controls when it comes to operating activities. SOX also established the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) which implemented stricter auditing standards for public accounting firms. Not only were accounting firms required to consider internal controls, but they were also required report any significant deficiency directly to the board of directors. SOX stressed the importance of internal controls, and within internal controls it established the need for segregation of duties. Since this time, there have been many additions to accounting policies regards segregations of duties, and many functions of the business process dedicated to it.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) was enacted into law in 2002 in the wake of corporation financial reporting scandals involving large publicly held companies. SOX instituted new strict financial regulations with the intent of improving accounting practices and protecting investors from corporate misconduct. SOX requires corporate executives to vouch for the accuracy of financial statements, and to institute and monitor effective internal controls over financial reporting. The cost of implementing an effective internal control structure are onerous, and SOX inflicts opportunity costs upon an enterprise as executives have

WorldCom acquired Arthur Andersen as the independent external auditing for the company. As WorldCom grew after the merger with MCI, Andersen began to invoice less than they should have. The charges were defended as an opportunity to prolong business with WorldCom. (Kaplan and Kiron, 2007). This is an immediate red flag for a company. Where were the ethical practices of the independent auditor? If the auditor has no ethics, how can one possibly be assured that the company is performing its intended function appropriately? The board of directors should have immediately been informed of Andersen’s practices and made a decision to confront Andersen’s practices and possibly obtain new independent auditors.