Will U.S. Supreme Court overhaul Sarbanes-Oxley ?

U.S. Supreme Court justices review the oversight board's legitimacy and power, potentially setting up further debate around Sarbanes-Oxley controls.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments for and against the legitimacy of the Public Company Oversight Board, an independent group established by the Security and Exchange Commission to servers as the auditing industry's watchdog over financial practice and corporate governance.

U.S. lawmakers will consider potential changes to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that could overhaul the board appointed to oversee public corporations' financial practices and lead to altered requirements for future audits. 

Privileged user management: Who is watching the watchers?

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday will hear arguments for and against the constitutionality of the oversight board established to monitor public company financial activity as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulation. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was created and enacted into law partly in response to corporate accounting scandals such as Enron and WorldCom. The regulatory standard set out to reduce such fraudulent financial activities and provide an oversight mechanism for public companies. Part of the law includes the establishment of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which consists of five members appointed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The arguments to be heard this week relate directly to the PCAOB. While set up to regulate financial accounting at companies, those opposed to the board's powers argue that because its members are not appointed by the president, the board's control is unconstitutional based on the country's tenets of three branches of government. The challengers to the law say that the PCAOB lacks the presidential control required for executive branch agencies because the five members are appointed by the SEC, which doesn't fall under presidential powers. As a private agency in essence, the PCAOB is able to act as a government authority, which the Free Enterprise Fund believes to be unconstitutional.

It is unclear if a closer look at Sarbanes-Oxley would lead to tighter or looser controls on public companies. According to reports published by Rueters, Congress is considering exempting small companies from audit requirements, but reports also suggest that the PCAOB could become responsible to inspect auditors of brokerages, considering the Bernard Madoff investment scandal.

Lawyer Michael Carvin represents the Free Enterprise Fund and is quoted by Bloomberg as saying, "When Congress enacts legislation to fix the board, that will provide a vehicle for opponents of the current Sarbanes-Oxley to propose amendments."

Do you Tweet? Follow Network World on Twitter here.  

Learn more about this topic

Entitlement management: Access control on steroids

Execs tell regulators Sarbanes-Oxley costs exceed benefits

Study: Sarbanes-Oxley forcing some companies to consider going private

SEC extends Sarbanes-Oxley deadline for smaller companies

SOX: Five years of headaches

Sarbanes-Oxley: the curse imposed because of the misdeeds of a few

Editors' Picks
Join the discussion
Be the first to comment on this article. Our Commenting Policies