Apple Case Found in Baltzan and Philip Chapter 1

3356 Words14 Pages
A. How will the SOX law affect audit committees of public company board of directors? The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), signed into law in July 2002, will likely affect audit committees of public company boards of directors to a significant degree. After the SOX Act was signed, the membership of audit committees was changed. In fact, members of an audit committee were required to “be a member of the board of directors of the issuer, and otherwise be independent,” where independent means “not receiving, other than for service on the board, any consulting, advisory, or other compensatory fee from the issuer, and as not being an affiliated person of the issuer, or any subsidiary thereof” (AICPA, 2006, Section 301). Not only that, but it requires that “one member have accounting or financial management expertise” (AICPA, 2006, Section 407). This is important, as the Act seeks to make audit committees more impartial with regards to auditing a company’s accounting processes, yet knowledgeable of financial processes and procedures. Previously, companies had significant problems with conflicts of interest. In addition to the new membership requirements, the Sox Act required that “the audit committee of an issuer shall be directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, and oversight of the work of any registered public accounting firm employed by that issuer,” and “The audit committee shall establish procedures for the ‘receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints’ received by the issuer regarding accounting, internal controls, and auditing” (AICPA, 2006, Section 301). The SOX Act was clearly looking to increase the responsibilities of audit committees, to include oversight and compliance, so that they may more closely monitor accounting practices, amongst other company procedures. In fact, the SOX Act also determined that “accounting firms must

More about Apple Case Found in Baltzan and Philip Chapter 1

Open Document