Search results

Highlights a recent decision in a County Court case (The Alexander Collections Ltd v. Martin and Lacey) which illustrates the legal implications of surveying historic buildings. The article also identifies the basic skills required to carry out this type of work.

Professional consultants are liable for damage resulting from negligent advice, design or acts. This research examines the perspectives of professionals involved in advice on the built heritage. It examines the risks for consultants as perceived by conservation advisory bodies, insurers, legal consultants and conservation consultants. The paper explores the risks assumed in conservation of the built heritage and control measures generally adopted. Results indicate two types of consultancy advice that incur different risk levels. Conservation consultancy can be separated by the knowledge and experience of the consultant(s) involved, either conservation awareness or general property and construction awareness only. The former can be further subdivided by the particular nature of their advice: advice relating to survey and valuation, and advice relating to repair and refurbishment. Consultants perceive clients to be divided into two categories: informed and uninformed. A typology of clients and professional consultants is presented, which indicates broad risk categories.

If the past 30 years of history have taught anything, it is that white‐collar offenders often run afoul of the law by their participation in cover‐ups rather than their part in a substantive criminal offenses. In August 1974, President Richard Nixon was forced to resign as President of the United States ‐ not because of the Watergate break in itself, but his attempts to cover it up. President Clinton was impeached and narrowly avoided indictment ‐ not for his sexual escapades with Monica Lewinsky, but his attempt to redefine the word “is” during his testimony at a deposition. Recently, we have seen the demise of Arthur Andersen, LLP ‐ not as the result of a securities fraud conviction, but a conviction for obstruction of justice. Frank Quattrone was indicted recently for allegedly counseling the destruction of documents, and Martha Stewart was indicted, not for insider trading or the alleged conduct that first brought her under the microscope of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Department of Justice (“DOJ”), but allegedly for misleading federal agents. This article will review the current round of indictments against Wall Street luminaries for obstruction, as well as the new obstruction provisions of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act. It then will make some observations on how these events should impact a corporation’s document retention policy. Finally, it will discuss how compliance programs that aim to enforce the laws of this country and assist governmental inquiries may actually ensnare corporation employees in an obstruction trap.

In the light of recent financial scandals, such as Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom, the purpose of this paper is to use an institutional theory perspective to examine the interactions between the accounting profession, the SEC and the Congress.

The paper takes an institutional perspective of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act and reviews how historical events have led to various institutional developments, which, in turn, have resulted in accountancy changes.

The end result is posited to be an outcome that enhances the legitimacy of the SEC to regulate the accounting profession. At the same time, the accounting profession will emerge from the events able to proclaim that it is improved. Finally, politicians will garner favor from the voters since they have acted to protect the public from financial frauds.

Describes how the relationship among the three parties is in reality a highly predictable set of behaviors that will allow all of the participants to demonstrate legitimacy to their external constituents and enable each party to secure enhanced future resources.

This paper aims to examine the recent evolution of the regulation of statutory auditing since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 in the USA by comparing the regulatory structures for auditing in the USA, France and Canada.

Using publicly available documents, the paper seeks to understand how the regulatory structures for statutory auditing have changed in the period since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The USA, France and Canada were chosen for analysis because prior to Sarbanes-Oxley the regulatory structures of these three countries were relatively distinct, whereas subsequent to the Act they appear to be becoming similar.

The authors interpret the increasing apparent similarity in the regulatory structures for statutory auditing in these three countries to be the result of external pressures from global capital markets for standardized regulatory practices. However, this apparent similarity may also be a form of “decoupling”, whereby actors in the institutional field of professional regulation, under pressures from powerful external forces, seek to enhance their legitimacy while maintaining internal flexibility and a certain capacity for resistance against external pressures in the institutional field.

The paper relies on a qualitative analysis of regulatory structures based on a review and analysis of publicly available documents and legislation. As such, it has limitations similar to other qualitative studies.

The regulation of statutory auditing is important to society both to assure the proper functioning of capital markets and to provide reliable information to the general public. Gaining a better understanding of the regulatory structures for statutory auditing advances the public interest.

There have been few prior research efforts that have examined the regulation of statutory auditing through the lens of new institutional theory.

The author, chief executive of the Association of Corporate Treasurers, looks ahead at two challenges of 2004 in the continuing arguments over international financial reporting rules on financial instruments, which he believes will create inconsistencies in banking accounts and treasury practices, and in the implementation of the Sarbanes‐Oxley legislation which he believes will create a burden of excessive certification.

Today's competitive health care markets demand innovation and risk taking on the part of organizations. However, increased government regulation and stiffer penalties enacted in the wake of recent high-profile corporate scandals and the resulting Sarbanes–Oxley legislation, may render boards less willing to undertake entrepreneurial ventures. This article extends the typology of corporate entrepreneurship (CE) developed by Covin and Miles (1999) by extending the CE types to address governance activities in the health care sector. Four case studies are presented that illustrate each of the typology's forms. In addition, the implications of the typology for health care executives and trustees are discussed and areas for future research are recommended.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an historical perspective to help understand the forces that resulted in the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act. It aims to provide an historical vindication of the taxonomy developed by Charles Conrad in 2003.

The paper applies a framework developed by Charles Conrad in 2003 to explain the events that led to the corporate meltdown in 2002‐2003 and compare it to a similar scandal in the insurance industry at the beginning of the twentieth century.

A number of parallels were found between the two incidents. Additionally, the framework developed by Charles Conrad in 2003 was vindicated by the historical comparison. Lessons for practicing managers, domestic and international, are presented along with avenues for possible future research.

Recent changes in the political landscape, particularly in the USA, may indicate that Sarbanes‐Oxley will, indeed, be with us for a longer, rather shorter time. However, the real lesson for managers and scholars of management may be to concentrate on the three trends that foreshadow scandals and meltdowns to prevent similar problems, with their inevitable legal backlash in the future.

This paper uses the framework developed by Charles Conrad in 2003 to explore to different corporate meltdowns separated by a century in the USA. Lessons learned from these incidents as well as a perspective on the probable effective life of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act are suggested.

In 2011, Sherry Hunt was a vice president and chief underwriter at CitiMortgage headquarters in the United States. For years she had been witnessing fraud, as the company bought billions of dollars in mortgage loans from external lenders that did not meet Citi credit policy and sold them to government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs). This resulted in Citi selling to GSEs such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pools of loans that were considerably defective and thus likely to default. Citi had also approved hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of defective mortgage files for U.S. Federal Housing Administration insurance. After reporting the mortgage defects in regular reports, notifying and working closely with her direct supervisor (who was subsequently asked to leave Citi after alerting the chairman of the board to these issues) to stop the purchase of defective loans, leaving anonymous tips on the FBI's and the Department of Housing and Urban Development's websites, and receiving threats from two of her superiors who demanded that she change the results of her quality control unit's reports, the shy and conflict-avoidant Hunt had to decide who she should tell about the fraud, and how.

The case gives students the opportunity to recommend how Hunt should proceed based on their analysis of the stakeholders involved. To aid instructors, the case includes Kellogg-produced videos of Hunt—the only on-camera interviews she has ever given—explaining what happened after she reported the fraud to Citi HR and, later, the U.S. Department of Justice. Within the case, students are also briefly exposed to legislation and bodies pertinent to whistle-blowing in the United States, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and the SEC Office of the Whistleblower.

This case won the 2014 competition for Outstanding Case on Anti-Corruption, supported by the Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME), an initiative of the UN Global Compact.

• Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

• Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

• Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

• Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

• Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

Analyze stakeholders' motivations to prepare counter-arguments to the resistance one might encounter when reporting unethical behavior

Write a script for who to tell, how, and why

Discuss how incentive structures, management, and culture play roles in promoting or hindering ethical behavior in organizations

Identify behaviors that help a whistle-blower be effective

Gain experience resolving ethical dilemmas in which two values may conflict, such as professional duty and personal ethics

This chapter explores the advantages (for large investors) of directly owning productive assets, compared with indirect ownership through stock in corporations. Significant factors are agency costs and recent changes in the tax and regulatory environment. Recent corporate scandals have led to legislative and regulatory responses that significantly increase the monitoring costs and other burdens of becoming or remaining a public corporation. As a result, there has been a substantial increase in going-private transactions, particularly among smaller public companies. Acquisitions and minority equity positions that allow large corporations to join with smaller companies have also increased. The pressures to go private are not entirely new, however. This chapter, reflecting collaboration by professors of finance and business law, traces the legal concept that the corporation is an entity separate and apart from its owners, showing how the legal status of corporations hinders resolution of conflicts among the parties to the enterprise. Thus, there have long been fundamental flaws inherent in the corporation as the form of organization for certain activities. The current wave of Sarbanes–Oxley restructuring via private equity firms is part of a significant increase in direct ownership of major assets by institutional investors. Direct ownership prevents management expropriation of resources, and is preferable to corporate ownership whenever other alternatives for indemnification or liability limitation are available (such as insurance, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.). Finally, the renewal of direct ownership is not a radical shift, but a return to long-established tradition in the organization of business activities.