|
|
 |
 
The Journal of Law, Economics, & Policy (JLEP) at George Mason University
School of Law presented a panel discussion entitled:
"The Sarbanes Oxley Act: An Efficient Solution to a Public Problem?"This event was held: April 6, 2006
Topic:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in response to the Enron and WorldCom corporate scandals, which shook investor's faith in the stock market. Fundamentally, the Act was an effort to establish mandatory corporate governance and accounting standards applicable to all public companies in order for them to enjoy the benefits of the public's confidence and investment. Now, several years after the passage of this legislation, we have solid data to evaluate the law's effectiveness, the cost of compliance, as well as the benefits that have accrued to the investing public. This lecture will focus on the effects of the legislation, both intended and unintended, with a focus on Section 404, the internal-controls provision, and the policies of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB).
Listen to the audio of this event on The Law and Economics Podcast:
Distinguished Panelists Included:: - Mr. Gerald Laporte, Chief, Office of Small Business Policy, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Mr. Michael See, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration
- Mr. John Berlau, Fellow in Economic Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Moderated by: Kristina M. Husar, 3rd Year Law Student at George Mason University and member of the Journal of Law, Economics, and Policy.
Lecture Series Event Summary
The panel discussed the potential consequences of securities regulation/overregulation. Small companies seem to be particularly effected by new regulations, but the panel agreed that all public companies need to have internal controls to monitor their financial statements. The tragedy of Enron made it clear, to some, that internal controls are not enough. The panel diverged in their opinions of what exactly should be learned from Enron, but concluded that increased government regulation and monitoring may be an option. However, monitoring comes with costs, and the evaluation of these costs is crucial...[more]
| |
|
