scholarly journals Is The Pcaob a “Heavily Controlled Component” Of The Sec?: An Essential Question In The Constitutional Controversy

2009 ◽  
Vol 71 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Free Enterprise ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, described as “the most important separation-of-powers case regarding the President’s appointment and removal powers to reach the courts in the last 20 years.” Established by Congress as the cornerstone of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley” or the “Act”), the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “PCAOB” or the “Board”) was structured as “a strong, independent board to oversee the conduct of the auditors of public companies.” Its principal mission was to prevent the type of auditing failures that contributed to the scandals at Enron, WorldCom, and numerous other public companies in the period leading up to the passage of the Act.

PCAOB Enforcements: A Review of the First Three Years

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. A15-A34 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Gilbertson ◽  
Terri L. Herron
Keyword(s):  
Disciplinary Action ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company

SUMMARY: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (hereafter, PCAOB) to oversee audits of public companies. When violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or PCAOB rules are found, the PCAOB may impose sanctions as severe as revoking a firm’s registration or barring a person from participating in audits of public companies. This paper describes the PCAOB enforcement actions issued through 2008. We examine characteristics of the disciplined firms, their PCAOB inspections, the related issuer clients, and the circumstances that resulted in the disciplinary proceedings. Consistent with prior research, we find that firms with issues rising to the level of disciplinary action generally have longer inspections and more audit deficiencies than firms with inspection deficiencies not resulting in sanctions. Disciplined firms also tend to have fewer partners, audit more SEC issuers, and have clients that are smaller and less financially sound.

The PCAOB Meets the Constitution: The Supreme Court to Decide on the PCAOB’s Conformity with the Separation of Powers Doctrine and Appointments Clause

2010 ◽  
Vol 24 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald R. King
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Future ◽  
Accounting Standard Setting

SYNOPSIS: This commentary provides an overview of the case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court that alleges constitutional problems with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). The PCAOB, a Board designed to oversee auditing for publicly traded firms, was created by Congress when it passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (hereafter, SOX). To enhance PCAOB’s independence from political pressures, Congress established it as a private-sector, non-profit organization, and gave oversight powers to the Securities and Exchange Commission (hereafter, SEC), an independent agency. The plaintiffs in this case allege that Congress empowered the PCAOB with broad executive powers, yet limited the President’s ability to appoint Board members (thus violating the appointments clause of the Constitution) and to control and/or remove Board members (thus violating the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution). The Supreme Court’s decision about the constitutionality of the PCAOB is important because of its potential impact on (1) the future of auditing oversight; (2) the validity of SOX; and (3) the future of independent agencies in general. From a policy point of view, the case highlights the importance of the combination of independence and accountability for auditing and accounting standard setting and practice.

scholarly journals The PCAOB’s First Seven Years: A Retrospection

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. A9-A20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bill Gradison ◽  
Ron Boster
Keyword(s):  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Board Level

SUMMARY: The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) turned seven years old in January 2010. Up until that date, it had spent more than three-quarters of a billion dollars of compulsory “fees” paid predominantly by larger public companies (issuers) to finance the specific mandate given it by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.1 The authors were there from the beginning. We offer a Board-level perspective into the PCAOB’s key programs and policies.

Sarbanes-Oxley and Public Reporting on Internal Control: Hasty Reaction or Delayed Action?

2013 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 371-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parveen P. Gupta ◽  
Thomas R. Weirich ◽  
Lynn E. Turner
Keyword(s):  
Internal Control ◽  
Public Reporting ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Wall Street ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Legislative Proposals ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The U.S

SYNOPSIS Since its passage, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been criticized, and praised, by many on numerous grounds and claims. However, no single provision of this law has come under more attack than Section 404, which mandates public reporting of internal control effectiveness by an issuer's management as well as its independent auditors. Even after 10 years, the opposition to the Section 404 internal control requirements has continued to the point where the U.S. Congress through two separate Acts—the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the 2012 Jump Start Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act—have permanently exempted the non-accelerated SEC filers and the “emerging growth” issuers with revenues of $1 billion or less from Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Many of those who oppose the Section 404 requirements rest their claim on grounds that the U.S. Congress acted in haste in mandating the public reporting of internal controls by U.S.-listed companies and that the issue was not well thought out or debated. They also contend that the U.S. Congress acted under pressure because of the public outrage over the bankruptcy filings of Enron and WorldCom. To the contrary, this paper shows that the debate over public reporting of internal control by U.S. public companies is more than six decades old, dating back to the McKesson & Robbins fraud. This paper reviews relevant legislative proposals, bills introduced in both the House and the Senate, regulatory efforts by the SEC, and the recommendations of many commissions set up by the private sector to inform the reader how these efforts were the deliberative precursors to what was eventually codified in Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

scholarly journals Increasing Transparency: A Prototype of the Nonpublic Portions of PCAOB Large-Firm Inspection Reports

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. A1-A21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael J. Evans ◽  
Ronald S. Boster ◽  
Bill Gradison
Keyword(s):  
Quality Control ◽  
Large Firm ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Audit Reports

SUMMARY:The Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) and requires it to conduct annual inspections of accounting firms that regularly provide audit reports for more than 100 public companies (issuers). Certain information in these reports is, by law, nonpublic—in particular, findings of “quality control” (QC) deficiencies. Having access to nonpublic portions of PCAOB inspection reports, the authors create an illustrative example of a nonpublic portion of a large-firm inspection report, albeit with specific firms and issuers de-identified.

A Decade after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Need for Ongoing Vigilance, Monitoring, and Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanette M. Franzel
Keyword(s):  
Audit Quality ◽  
Warning Signs ◽  
Regulatory Regime ◽  
Government Accountability ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Audit Independence

SYNOPSIS After more than a decade since passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), it is appropriate and necessary to ask questions about the present state of audit quality and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of PCAOB's oversight programs. Written from the viewpoint of a current PCAOB Board member and former Managing Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), this paper discusses the warning signs of serious auditing problems in the years preceding the Act, and the role that the GAO played in analyzing those risks and calling for greater oversight of the accounting profession's auditing public companies. We must be vigilant and continually examine the activities of the auditing profession and the regulatory regime to ensure that audit independence and audit quality remain front and center to ensure investor protection and safeguard the public interest. Academic researchers play a key role in this system of vigilance. This paper provides views on many areas within the auditing profession that would benefit from further research and analysis, as well as opportunities for research that could be useful to the PCAOB as it considers current and future regulatory priorities.

Auditing the Auditors: A Case on PCAOB Inspection Reports of Registered Public Accounting Firms

2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. B1-B18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Daugherty ◽  
Marshall K. Pitman
Keyword(s):  
Public Accounting ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Firm ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company ◽  
Public Accounting Firms ◽  
Audit Evidence ◽  
Inspection Process

SUMMARY: We present a timely practice-oriented case related to the inspection process of registered firms by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). This case allows auditing students an opportunity to explore the unique challenges that public accounting firms auditing U.S. public companies face with respect to the PCAOB inspection process. The case focuses on large and small registered firms (inspected annually and triennially, respectively) receiving an inspection report where the PCAOB identified certain matters considered to be audit deficiencies of such significance that the inspection team believed the audit firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support the auditor’s opinion. The case exposes students to the PCAOB inspection process, highlights many deficiencies noted to date by the PCAOB inspectors, and emphasizes the importance of sufficient and appropriately documented audit evidence to support audit opinions. By reviewing ‘deficient’ inspection reports, students gain an appreciation for common audit deficiencies as well as the subjective nature of portions of the authoritative literature and the inspection process itself. The case reinforces students’ understanding of the practical matters involved in appropriately obtaining, evaluating, and documenting audit evidence, as well as educates students on the PCAOB inspection process in order to address important competencies required of Sarbanes-Oxley era audit professionals.

scholarly journals The Goals and Promise of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C Coates
Keyword(s):  
Financial Reporting ◽  
Internal Controls ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
Section 404 ◽  
Public Companies ◽  
The Public ◽  
Corporate Scandals ◽  
Sarbanes Oxley ◽  
Public Company

The primary goal of the SarbanesOxley Act was to fix auditing of U.S. public companies, consistent with its full, official name: the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002. By consensus, auditing had been working poorly, and increasingly so. The most important, and most promising, part of SarbanesOxley was the creation of a unique, quasi-public institution to oversee and regulate auditing, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). In controversial section 404, the law also created new disclosure-based incentives for firms to spend money on internal controls, above increases that would have occurred after the corporate scandals of the early 2000s. In exchange for these higher costs, which have already fallen substantially, SarbanesOxley promises a variety of long-term benefits. Investors will face a lower risk of losses from fraud and theft, and benefit from more reliable financial reporting, greater transparency, and accountability. Public companies will pay a lower cost of capital, and the economy will benefit because of a better allocation of resources and faster growth. SarbanesOxley remains a work in progress -- section 404 in particular was implemented too aggressively - but reformers should push for continued improvements in its implementation, by PCAOB, rather than for repeal of the legislation itself.

scholarly journals Speaking with One Voice on the Recognition of States

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 109 ◽  
pp. 61-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Campbell McLachlan
Keyword(s):  
Executive Function ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional History ◽  
The U.S

At first blush, the recent judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court in Zivotofsky v Kerry (Zivotofsky II) reads as a strikingly American affair concerning the enduring force of the separation of powers under a written Constitution. Finding that the President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign states and their territory, the Court holds that a statute of Congress encroaches upon this power and declares it unconstitutional. The reasoning of both the Court and the minority justices is largely a narrative of U.S. Constitutional history. So one might ask: does this decision really have anything to say of significance outside the U.S. context about the scope of the executive function in foreign relations?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document