美国SOX法案对内部审计的影响

安然事件发生后,美国于2002年颁布了Sanbans-OxleyAct(简称SOX法案),其中多个条款均涉及到内部控制或内部审计。本文旨在探讨SOX法案对内部审计地位所产生的影响,进而讨论内部审计在公司遵循SOX法案中可以承担的职责。     

观念管理在遵循SOX404过程中的重要性

随着美国萨班斯法案的出台,所有在美国资本市场上市的企业都要求遵循此项法案的规定,而尤以萨班斯法案第404条款（简称SOX404）最难执行。企业遵循SOX404的阻力来源于员工观念的落后及对内部控制责任的认识。对员工进行观念管理有利于加强企业内部控制建设和减少企业遵循SOX404的成本。     

IT遵从SOX法案的策略

1997年的金融危机以及2002年美国安然、世通等公司的会计丑闻事件,彻底打击了美国投资者对美国资本市场的信心。为了改变这一局面,美国国会和政府在2002年6月通过了萨班斯-奥克斯利法案(Sarbanes-Oxley Act．简称SOX法案),SOX法案的另一个名称是《上市公司会计改革与投资者保护法案》,法案旨在通过提高公司信息披露的准确性和可靠性来保护投资者的利益。 SOX法案共分11章,主要内容包括：建立“上市公司会计监管委员会(PCAOB)”,对上市公司     

改进监管的根本问题是公司治理

去年7月30日，美国总统布什签署了国会通过的旨在加强对上市公司及中介机构监管的《公司改革法案》(Sarbanes-Oxley Act，以下简称，SOX法案)。近年来中国证券市场也屡屡发生信息披露不实、庄家操纵股市等违规违法案件，加强监管的呼声日盛。那么套用美国的SOX法案来解决中国上市公司的问题是否可行呢?从中国的角度去理解SOX法案，     

IS审计流程在COBIT过程域中的实现

随着以ERP为代表的组织(企、事业单位)IS(InformationSystem,信息系统)的应用和普及,组织管理层越来越关注IS与公司业务战略的一致程度,IS本身的安全性、可靠性与机密性。美国《萨班斯——奥克斯利法案2002》(简称SOX法案)对评估组织的IT控制提出了很高的要求。从2011年开始,中国境内所有新上市的公司必须遵守中国的SOX法案。SOX法案要求上市公司选择并实施公认的内部控制框架,如COSO内部控制整体框架。该法案把增强组织业务流程管理及支持IS的内部控制整体水平作为目标,直接导致IS审计在中国企业界的飞速发展。     

内部控制审计：SOX法案的影响

2002年7月30日,《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》(简称SOX)正式生效。该法案404节要求公众公司管理当局编制内部控制报告,并由注册会计师审计。本文首先阐述了内部控制报告,并从内部控制审计的角度,探讨了SOX法案对审计方法、公司管理当局和审计人员的责任的影响及其对我国的启示。     

中国电信运营商SOX内部控制实践研究

本文分析了中国在海外上市的电信运营商内部控制的特点,重点介绍了电信运营商遵循SOX法案的实践情况。研究发现,通过法案的遵循工作,我国电信运营商无论在内部控制体系的建设,以及企业流程再造和管理提升方面都得到了显著的提高。电信运营商遵循SOX法案的成功实践为其他上市公司加强内部控制管理提供了有益参考价值。     

中国电信运营商SOX内部控制实践研究

本文分析了中国在海外上市的电信运营商内部控制的特点,重点介绍了电信运营商遵循SOX法案的实践情况。研究发现,通过法案的遵循工作,我国电信运营商无论在内部控制体系的建设,以及企业流程再造和管理提升方面都得到了显著的提高。电信运营商遵循SOX法案的成功实践为其他上市公司加强内部控制管理提供了有益参考价值。     

美国SOX法案对财务报告供给链主体的新举措

当"9.11"恐怖事件使美国经济走入低谷时,以安然公司欺诈案为序幕的一系列上市公司财务丑闻更使其经济雪上加霜.在此情形下,美国国会通过了旨在治理公司会计造假的SOX法案.本文从公司财务报告供给链的角度,对SOX法案进行简要分析.     

SOX内部控制体系下如何建立有效控制点——以生产制造循环为例

正2002年7月,美国国会通过了《2002上市公司会计改革与投资者保护法案》(SOX法案),其中SOX404条款的约束使得众多在美国上市的公司不断完善其内部管理控制体系,尤其是生产制造企业,SOX内部控制体系在其管理体系中发挥了巨大的作用。但笔者认为,针对一个企业来说,内部控制制度的建立只是控制活动的基础,更重要的是企业如何建立     

New legislation affecting us nonprofits

In the summer of 1996, Congress passed and the President signed, four pieces of legislation of significance to the nonprofit sector: the Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2 (TBR2), the Small Business Job Protection Bill of 1996 (Small Business Act), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, and the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation (Welfare Reform) Act of 1996. Taken together, these four laws contain what are perhaps the most significant changes to the Internal Revenue Code since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, and what are certainly the most profound changes in the rules affecting tax-exempt organisations since the enactment of the 1969 legislation governing private foundations. This paper highlights the most significant features of these laws as they affect nonprofits.¹     

Major EEO issues relating to personnel selection decisions

This paper examines recent EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) case law precedents relating to personnel selection, most notably hiring, training, promotion and downsizing. The statutes referenced include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Constitutional claims, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA-91), and Executive Order 11246 on Affirmative action. Seven topics are featured, including: (I) disparate treatment theory, (II) adverse impact theory in the ADEA, (III) adverse impact theory in Title VII, (IV) affirmative action based on operational needs, (V) key ADA rulings and the ADA amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), (VI) retaliation, and (VII) mandatory binding arbitration agreements. The case law surveyed reveals costly mistakes employers and HR managers can make, but which can be avoided with proper methods and policies. Some issues may require professional help (e.g., developing and validating selection tests), whereas others (e.g. retaliation), can be addressed in-house with knowledge of policies and procedures recommended by the EEOC to prevent problems from occurring, and to quickly correct them if they occur.     

PYRRHIC VICTORY? THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THE PENSIONS ACT 2004

The UK's 2004 Pensions Act is a far-reaching piece of legislation, with significant implications for the occupational pensions marketplace. The Act is intended to improve the governance of pension schemes and increase the security of the members' accrued benefits. However, our research suggests that it will have serious and adverse unintended consequences. The most significant of these will be to undermine occupational pension provision by placing an increased burden on sponsoring employers, whose involvement in pension provision is on a voluntary basis.     

Knowledge Concerning Employees’ Legal Rights at Work among Banking Employees in Malaysia

This study was conducted to determine the level of knowledge concerning employee rights under the Employment Act, Trade Unions Act and Industrial Relations Act among banking employees in Malaysia. This study also identified the specific areas of employee rights that employees are most familiar with and compared this level of knowledge by gender, age, tenure, and level of education. The findings revealed that the respondents do not possess sound knowledge of their legal rights. The respondents have the highest level of knowledge on employee basic rights, and have the lowest level of knowledge on rights to termination and dismissal. There was a small difference in the level of knowledge between male and female; however the level of knowledge increases with employes’ age, tenure and level of education.     

Protecting employee safety rights: OSHA or arbitration?

This paper analyzes the protection of employees against employer retatliation for seeking a safe and healthy workplace. It discusses the exercise of rights guaranteed by the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 and compares the legal protection of Section 11(c) of that Act with the grievance arbitration mechanism found in most union contracts. It also considers the importance of union representation in the ability and protection of employees seeking to exercise their OSHA rights. Administrative and legislative recommendations are made to improve the OSHA procedures, and questions are raised regarding adapting arbitration procedures to the OSHA mechanism.     

Unfair Dismissal in Turkish Employment Law

Under the previous Employment Act No. 1475 employers had the right to dismiss any employee as they saw fit and there was no reinstatement for unfair or unjustified dismissal. However in the context of the national policy of harmonization with the European Union, the Turkish government introduced a new Act on job security (No. 4773). Then a new Employment Act (No. 4857), which included job security provisions, was introduced, whereas the Job Security Act No. 4773 and Employment Act No. 1475 were repealed. However this new Act provides only limited protection against unfair or unjustified dismissal because not all employees and organizations are covered by the new Act No. 4857.     

Capital market reactions to the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999

The Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), removed most of the remaining barriers between financial companies. Stock market reactions to the passage of GLBA vary across financial sectors and company size. Specifically, we find negative returns for foreign banks, thrifts and finance companies; insignificant returns for banks; and positive returns for investment banks and insurance companies. Additionally, larger nondepository firms have higher returns. The return variation reflects resolution of uncertainty surrounding the final provisions of GLBA, competitive pressures, and expectations of future business combinations. Potential gains from business combinations may arise from economies of scope, market power, and/or from an implicit extension of government guarantees to banking affiliates.     

Ripping off Aunt Agatha: a decade of the Financial Services Act

The new Financial Services Authority will put the public interest first. These were the words of the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, when announcing that the Financial Services Act 1988 was to be overhauled and self regulation was to be abandoned. This paper argues that the regime put in place by the Act in 1988, has manifestly failed to deliver the protection that was promised to 'Aunt Agatha.' It argues that regulatory failure is ubiquitous and that the cause of this failure is that regulatory agencies are invariably captured by the people that they are supposed to be regulating. Finally, it presents an alternative to state regulation, by highlighting the considerable protections offered by the common law, by self regulation and, most importantly by a free, competitive and open market.     

Employee appearance and the Americans with Disabilities Act: An emerging issue?

The recent passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), considered the most far-reaching civil rights legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, promises to raise demanding new challenges for employers. This article alerts readers to one example of what may prove to be a long list of unanticipated, but potentially onerous, repercussions from this legislation. Specifically discussed is the role of the ADA in the likely emergence of the issue of employee physical appearance. In addition to the role of the ADA, we explain how other legal forces, as well as organizational and economic forces, may propel physical appearances to the level of a formidable social issue.An earlier draft of this paper was presented as a symposium at the 1989 Employee Responsibilities and Rights Conference, Orlando.