Open Offer to Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich: I would pay you each $10,000 to hold a 1 hour publicized debate with me about Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404(a), (b), and (c).

Let's speak seriously about this issue.

A recently published survey by global business consulting firm Protiviti offers insight about SOX compliance at public companies with revenues less than $100 million.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has made a concept release on the "Possible Rulemaking Approaches to Complement Application of Section 105 (C)(6) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."

Now that the wait for the 404(b) reprieve is over, it appears that a new trend is emerging to investigate 404(a) statements more closely, as expressed in recent articles on investor and auditor sentiment regarding the legislative change. We are hearing from auditors directly that they will be applying more scrutiny to 404(a) statements made by their clients in their financial reports, to ensure that there is a real basis for self-certification. The newly aggressive SEC and DOJ are expanding personnel and focusing on Corporate Governance and the role of Audit Committees, Directors and Company Officers in Compliance and Financial reporting.

Here at Vibato, we were recently questioned about what the Wall Street Reform Act means for non-accelerated filers with June 30th year-ends. Some lawyers have been claiming that the Wall Street Reform Act will be retroactively applied to these companies, so we contacted the SEC about the issue.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board has made a concept release on the "Possible Rulemaking Approaches to Complement Application of Section 105 (C)(6) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002."

The article below was sent from a dear friend of mine and fellow SOX enthusiast, Clark Keeler, Director, BPM.  I find the article to have a significant amount of irony considering it claims that "American business people of a conservative nature have been dreaming about driving a stake through the heart of the Sarbanes-Oxley act ever since the legislation was passed..." It would seem to me that if a person was truly fiscally conservative, they would consider Sarbanes-Oxley to be the prudent choice rather than the radical one.  Internal controls require there to be a check point in a business procedure that requires someone other than the preparer of the documentation to verify the accuracy of what was prepared.  This verification prevents someone from acting alone when making decisions about shareholder assets (physical assets, capital, intangible assets, etc). I am of the opinion that this double check adds a necessary layer of review considering the potential for fraud, errors, omissions, etc.  Considering all that we at Vibato, LLC have found when testing internal controls, this is no longer just opinion but rather, fact.  Read more on the article here:

I read an interesting Press Release this morning, titled "House Approves Wall Street Reform Package." To read the press release, follow the link below:

I read this press release this morning and feel that our readers will find it interesting. It details the Center for Audit Quality's reaction to the Supreme Court's PCAOB Decision:

The Ohio Society of CPAs  commented on the "Last-minute attempt made to remove small public company exemption from financial reform"  in 404(b) in the article below on 25 June 2010. They discussed the fact that investors in small companies deserve safeguards against possible fraud. After all, if there are no safeguards to prevent fraud for small public companies, that will ultimately lead to a lack of investment in these companies as investors will not feel secure in doing so. Click  here to read the full statement.