Sarbanes-Oxley Executive Compensation Clawbacks Continue

Yesterday, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced another successful "clawback" of executive compensation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. James O'Leary, former Chief Financial Officer of Atlanta-based Beazer Homes USA, was forced to return over $1.4 million in bonus payments and stock sale profits that he made as a result of fraudulent financial reporting in 2006. What is somewhat unique about the case is the fact that the CFO was not implicated in any wrongdoing other than certifying that the financial statements were accurate. The individual who is being criminally prosecuted for the fraud is the Chief Accounting Officer who reported to the CFO during the time period in question.

“Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act encourages senior management to take affirmative steps to prevent fraudulent accounting schemes from occurring on their watch,” said Rhea Kemble Dignam, Director of the SEC’s Atlanta Regional Office. “O’Leary received substantial incentive compensation and stock sale profits while Beazer was misleading investors and fraudulently overstating its income.”

This announcement comes on the heels of a related clawback from the CEO of Beazer Homes that totaled more than $6.4 million. Again, in this case, the CEO was not implicated in any criminal wrongdoing. The SEC's enforcement approach regarding both the CEO and the CFO in this case serve as a reminder to senior executives to ensure their annual certifications are accurate. The only way to know is to have a strong risk and control program in place. Wheelhouse Advisors can help. Visit www.WheelhouseAdvisors.com to learn more.

SEC Releases Long-Awaited Study on SOX

This week, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") released its study on the impacts of section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"). The SEC concluded that section 404(b) which requires an external auditor to issue an opinion on a company's internal control over financial reporting should remain effective for mid-sized companies with a market capitalization of $75 to $250 million. Here is a summary of their conclusion and recommendations:

The work performed by the Staff reinforces our understanding that the costs of Section 404(b) have declined since the Commission first implemented Section 404, particularly in response to the 2007 reforms, that investors generally view the auditor‘s attestation on ICFR as beneficial, and that financial reporting is more reliable when the auditor is involved with ICFR assessments.

1. Maintain existing investor protections of Section 404(b) for accelerated filers, which have been in place since 2004 for domestic issuers and 2007 for foreign private issuers.

2. Encourage activities that have potential to further improve both effectiveness and efficiency of Section 404(b) implementation.

Since the Dodd-Frank Act exempted small companies with a market capitalization less than $75 million from section 404(b), this study should effectively end the debate over Sarbanes-Oxley section 404 requirements. For mid-size companies looking to gain efficiencies in complying with section 404(b), Wheelhouse Advisors can help. Email us at NavigateSuccessfully@WheelhouseAdvisors.com to learn more.

SEC Resumes Clawback of Executive Pay

Financial reporting risk has returned to the headlines with a recent announcement by the Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC") that it will be "clawing back" prior bonus payments made to a prominent CEO who falsely certified to the effectiveness of internal controls within the company. Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 allows the SEC to seek reimbursement of bonus payments and/or profits from the sale of securities by certifying executives during the time period when the internal controls are found to be ineffective. Here is an excerpt from the SEC's action:

"The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced a settlement with the chief executive officer of an Atlanta-based homebuilder to recover several million dollars in bonus compensation and stock profits that he received while the company was committing accounting fraud.

According to the SEC’s complaint filed today in federal court in Atlanta, CEO Ian J. McCarthy previously failed to reimburse Beazer Homes USA Inc. for bonuses, other incentive-based or equity-based compensation, and profits from Beazer stock sales that he received during the 12-month periods after his company filed fraudulent financial statements during fiscal year 2006."

During the financial crisis of the past few years, Sarbanes-Oxley has taken a back seat to other more pressing issues. However, now that the dust has settled, we can expect to see more actions such as this one.

Sarbanes-Oxley is Here to Stay

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a small portion of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 is unconstitutional. According to the ruling, The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") which oversees the accounting firms who audit U.S. public companies currently violates constitutional separations-of-powers principles.

The Court viewed the manner in which PCAOB members are currently appointed and removed to be unconstitutional because it did not operate at the behest of the President of the United States. As such, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will now have the authority subject to the President's review to appoint and remove PCAOB members at will.

However, the PCAOB itself and the remainder of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act remains intact and constitutional. So, those hoping to see the full demise of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act will certainly be disappointed by today's decision. To read the full ruling, click here.

Financial Restatements Continue to Decline

A recent report by Audit Analytics noted that the number of financial restatements among U.S. public companies has declined for the third year in a row.  630 companies filed 674 restatements last year representing a 27% decline from 2008.  Here is what CFO magazine had to say about the report.

The report attributes the decline in restatements to two factors: improved internal controls as a result of Sarbox, and a 2008 recommendation by the SEC's Advisory Committee on Improvements to Financial Reporting that the agency relax its requirements on what types of errors should trigger restatements.

"Frankly, I was pleasantly surprised," says Dennis Beresford, an accounting professor at the University of Georgia's J.M. Tull School of Business and a member of the CIFR. "It's always hard to know exactly what the reasons were, but I'd like to think it was a combination of better financial reporting, better auditing, and hopefully a little more reasonableness in terms of applying materiality [as to what needs to be restated]."

Interestingly, the majority of restatements continue to come from the smaller, non-accelerated filers that are not subject to an external audit of their financial controls (see chart below).  The decision to exempt these companies permanently from an external audit is still being debated by members of Congress and the Obama Administration.

Many Companies Still Not Ready For SOX Audits

In last week's issue of Compliance Week magazine, a startling survey result was disclosed.  It seems that almost two-thirds of the smaller public companies that will be facing an audit of their internal control over financial reporting this year are not fully prepared (see chart below).  While some may be looking for the U.S. Congress to exempt them from compliance (a measure that is currently being discussed on Capitol Hill), others may simply be ill-equipped or misdirected.  Here is what was reported in the Compliance Week article.

Of the 210 accountants participating in the recent poll, one-third said their company is less than 25 percent complete in implementing Section 404. Inefficiencies were attributed to problems such as poor training and education in the area of processes and controls, lack of focus on project management and utilizing resources, and a “compliance at all cost” mentality that is focused on effectiveness but not efficiency.

At a recent conference of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Elisse Walter, a commissioner for the Securities and Exchange Commission, said the SEC does not support an exemption for smaller companies. “The SEC supports applying 404(b) to smaller companies, particularly as it applies to the financial crisis we’ve seen,” she said. “But now it’s in the hands of Congress.”

Time will tell the outcome of the congressional debate.  However, the companies that are behind schedule should not necessarily hope for a last-minute reprieve.  The best approach is to address the compliance requirements in a business-focused, practical manner that is effective, efficient and ultimately beneficial to the company's long-term well-being.  If your company is looking for cost-effective solutions, visit www.WheelhouseAdvisors.com to learn how we can help.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Last week, the Government Accountability Office ("GAO") released the results of its annual audit of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC").  In the audit report, the GAO identified six significant deficiencies in the SEC's internal control over financial reporting.  The collection of these deficiencies amounted to a material weakness in the SEC's internal control over financial reporting.  For those who are not familiar with the term "material weakness", it represents a reportable event that must be disclosed by U.S. public companies as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  Here is what the GAO detailed in their report.

During this year’s audit, we identified six significant deficiencies that collectively represent a material weakness in SEC’s internal control over financial reporting. The significant deficiencies involve SEC’s internal control over (1) information security, (2) financial reporting process, (3) fund balance with Treasury, (4) registrant deposits, (5) budgetary resources, and (6) risk assessment and monitoring processes. These internal control weaknesses give rise to significant management challenges that have reduced assurance that data processed by SEC’s information systems are reliable and appropriately protected; impaired management’s ability to prepare its financial statements without extensive compensating manual procedures; and resulted in unsupported entries and errors in the general ledger.

As the primary enforcement agency for accurate financial reporting by U.S. public companies, the SEC should be leading by example in creating processes that provide reliable financial information.  Sadly, this is not the case and has not been for the past several years.  Let's hope SEC Chairwoman Mary Shapiro does a better job than former SEC Chairman Christopher Cox and can effect the necessary change within the agency.

Regulatory Reform "Doublethink"

What has happened to the promise of transparency and accountability?  According to a recent article in the New York Times, it has become a real-world example of "doublethink" - a term coined by George Orwell, the author of the famous novel 1984.  On the heels of one of the most serious financial crises of the past 100 years, the U.S. Congress is working against providing greater transparency and accountability.  Here is what the Times reported.

It took just five weeks after the WorldCom accounting scandal erupted in 2002 for Congress to pass, and President George W. Bush to sign, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. That law required public companies to make sure their internal controls against fraud were not full of holes. It took three more years for Bernard Ebbers, the man who built WorldCom into a giant, to be sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role in the fraud.

Mr. Ebbers will be 85 years old before he is eligible for release from prison. He may be freed, however, before the law is ever enforced on the vast majority of American companies. A Congressional committee voted this week to repeal a crucial part of the law. Other parts are also under attack. Sarbanes-Oxley was passed, almost unanimously, by a Republican-controlled House and a Democratic-controlled Senate. Now a Democratic Congress is gutting it with the apparent approval of the Obama administration.

The House Financial Services Committee this week approved an amendment to the Investor Protection Act of 2009 — a name George Orwell would appreciate — to allow most companies to never comply with the law, and mandating a study to see whether it would be a good idea to exempt additional ones as well. Some veterans of past reform efforts were left sputtering with rage. “That the Democratic Party is the vehicle for overturning the most pro-investor legislation in the past 25 years is deeply disturbing,” said Arthur Levitt, a Democrat who was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission under President Bill Clinton. “Anyone who votes for this will bear the investors’ mark of Cain.”

Restoring investor confidence in the financial system is the most effective path towards long-term economic recovery. These actions may remove a short-term burden from some companies, but the long-term impact to investor confidence will be severe - just ask the former stockholders of WorldCom.

Sarbanes-Oxley Deja Vu

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives proposed amendments to the Investor Protection Act of 2009 that will in essence seek to roll back some of the reforms implemented as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  Specifically, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Scott Garrett are seeking to exempt public companies with a market capitalization of less than $75 million from the requirement to have their internal controls audited by an external firm.

Their approach is to request the SEC to perform a study on the costs of compliance for these firms and then, determine the need for the requirement. While this may be a reasonable request, it has already been made and the SEC completed a similar study this year.  As a result, the SEC confirmed the need for the external audit and announced it will be required of all companies next year.  The Huffington Post reported that several investor advocate groups as well as a former SEC chairman were outraged by the proposed amendment.  Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/27/house-democrats-john-adle_n_334876.html

The Sarbanes-Oxley Countdown is Extended for a Final Time

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") announced last week that the deadline for full compliance with Section 404 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act for small companies has been extended for an additional and final nine months.  The primary reason for this final extension is the delayed publication of the formal study on the impact of changes to the compliance requirements made in 2007.  Here is the formal release from the SEC.

This extension of time will expire beginning with the annual reports of companies with fiscal years ending on or after June 15, 2010. This expiration date previously had been for fiscal years ending on or after Dec. 15, 2009. The extension was granted so that the SEC’s Office of Economic Analysis could complete a study of whether additional guidance provided to company managers and auditors in 2007 was effective in reducing the costs of compliance. Because the study was published less than three months before the December 15 deadline, the Commission determined that additional time is appropriate and reasonable so that small public companies and their auditors can better plan for the required auditor attestation.

“Since there will be no further Commission extensions, it is important for all public companies and their auditors to act with deliberate speed to move toward full Section 404 compliance,” said SEC Chairman Mary L. Schapiro.

So, the final clock is ticking.  Does your company need help implementing a cost-effective compliance program?  If so, Wheelhouse Advisors can help.  Visit www.WheelhouseAdvisors.com to learn more.

CEOs & CFOs Beware: SOX is Clawing Back

For those that thought the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX") is now just a relic of the past, think again.  Section 404 of the Act required massive investments by large companies to bolster their internal controls over financial reporting.  However, another section of the Act, Section 304, is just now starting to be utilized by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") as an enforcement mechanism to "clawback" executive pay.  Here is the language from Section 304 in its entirety.

Section 304 -- Forfeiture of Certain Bonuses and Profits

---

1. Additional Compensation Prior to Noncompliance With Commission Financial Reporting Requirements. If an issuer is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to the material noncompliance of the issuer, as a result of misconduct, with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, the chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the issuer shall reimburse the issuer for--
   
   
   
   1. any bonus or other incentive-based or equity-based compensation received by that person from the issuer during the 12-month period following the first public issuance or filing with the Commission (whichever first occurs) of the financial document embodying such financial reporting requirement; and
   
   
   2. any profits realized from the sale of securities of the issuer during that 12-month period.
   
   
   
   


2. Commission Exemption Authority. The Commission may exempt any person from the application of subsection (a), as it deems necessary and appropriate.

The wording of the legislation is not specific as to who should forfeit their compensation when a company is found to have misstated its financials.  As a result, the SEC is targeting the CEOs and CFOs of these companies regardless of their involvement in the wrongdoing.  The first enforcement action is against the CEO of CSK Auto Corporation and seeks $4 million in restitution from the CEO.   Here is what the SEC alleges in their action.

"The personal compensation received by CEOs while the companies they serve engage in wrongdoing can be clawed back," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "The costs of such misconduct need not be borne by shareholders alone."

"Jenkins was captain of the ship and profited during the time that CSK was misleading investors about the company's financial health," said Rosalind R. Tyson, Director of the SEC's Los Angeles Regional Office. "The law requires Jenkins to return those proceeds to CSK."

According to the SEC's complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, Jenkins made $2,091,020 in bonuses and $2,018,893 in company stock sales that should have been reimbursed to CSK pursuant to SOX Section 304.

This action is proof that the risks associated with compliance and regulation are increasing and are very real.  Are you certain that your company is SOX compliant?  If not, Wheelhouse Advisors can help.  To learn more, visit www.WheelhouseAdvisors.com.

SOX Sour Grapes

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") formed as a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX").  The crux of the case is the question of who should appoint the PCAOB directors.  As it stands today, the directors are appointed by the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission ("SEC").  The case argues that the board members should be appointed by the U.S. President or an appointee of the President.  However, the real aim of the case is to render the entire SOX act unconstitutional due to the lack of a severability clause in the legislation.  Here is some background on the case as reported by CFO magazine.

The question over the PCAOB's constitutionality began three years ago, when the Free Enterprise Fund, a policy group interested in promoting small government, took on the case of a small accounting firm criticized by the board after one of its inspections. The group contends that because the regulator was not a legal body under the constitution, it had no standing to perform such inspections or make such criticisms.

According to the noted origins, it looks like a case of sour grapes on the part of an accounting firm that has gained a foothold with those looking to overturn SOX.  We are in a much different environment than we were three years ago when the case was filed.  As a result, the Supreme Court decision should be very interesting. Stay tuned.

What a Difference a Financial Crisis Makes

President Obama's nominee to head the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), Mary Schapiro, recently responded to inquiries about her view on compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX 404").  This section of the Act has been widely criticized as overly burdensome and costly.  However, in light of the escalating number of financial reporting frauds related to the recent financial crisis, this view is changing.  Here are Ms. Schapiro's thoughts on SOX 404.

Regarding, SOX 404, accurate, robust, and easy-to-understand financial reporting -- and the internal controls that guarantee it -- are critically important to investors and to the efficient functioning of our markets. Right now, we have a system where some issuers are complying with 404 and others are still exempt from it. It’s time that we bring uniformity to the system so that investors know what to expect from companies, while being sensitive to the needs of small businesses. I look forward to working with the small business community in making sure they have the tools they need to comply with 404.

This is certainly an 180 degree about-face for the SEC, who under the leadership of Chairman Christopher Cox worked to delay full compliance for many years.  For those companies hoping for another delay, it will not be coming.  If your company needs assistance with SOX 404 compliance, email Wheelhouse Advisors at NavigateSuccessfully@WheelhouseAdvisors.com to learn more about cost-effective compliance solutions.

Room for Improvement

A recent study by the Financial Executives Research Foundation highlights the opportunities for many companies to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their Sarbanes-Oxley ("SOX") Compliance programs. In this week's edition of Compliance Week, the study was examined and those interviewed in the article all agreed that room for improvement still exists.  The four main areas of improvement for most programs are:

• Transforming controls to focus less on manual controls and more on automated and entity-level controls;


• Consolidating processes into a reduced number of systems or a reduced number of locations, through a shared-services or business process outsourcing approach;


• Adopting more sophisticated testing strategies, including remote testing; and


• Conducting SOX testing work more deliberately and selectively.

Wheelhouse Advisors is uniquely qualified to provide cost-effective solutions in each of these areas.  Visit our website at www.WheelhouseAdvisors.com to learn more.

Repeal the Rescue Packages

Last week, former US House Speaker Newt Gingrich wrote an opinion in the San Francisco Chronicle renewing the call for a repeal of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("SOX").  Mr. Gingrich's basic premise is that SOX went too far in regulating corporate governance and at the same time did nothing to prevent the collapse in financial markets.  As many others have complained in the past, Mr. Gingrich says that SOX is too costly and is preventing companies from going public.  Mr. Gingrich cites a $4.36 million cost per company from a recent Financial Executives International ("FEI") survey.  However, he fails to mention this figure is for the largest of companies (those with a market value greater than $700 million) and is out of date.  The most recent FEI survey figure for the largest companies is actually lower ($3.8 million) and for smaller companies that he is referencing in his IPO argument, the average cost is just over $600,000.  

Now, let's compare that to the updated "rescue" package for AIG.  Just this week, the package was increased to $150 billion.  That's right - billion with a "B".  And, as for the claim that SOX did nothing to prevent AIG's woes, it actually helped bring the woes to light.  It was the external auditor's disclosure of a material weakness in AIG controls (a SOX requirement) over credit default swap valuations that first held AIG management accountable and led to the departure of the CEO.  

Lastly, Mr. Gingrich says that SOX is driving companies overseas.  Well, if that is the case, then the "rescue" packages are certainly serving as a great incentive for companies to come back to the US.  Now, companies are lining up to receive US taxpayer money.  Those companies that do not want to be held accountable when accessing capital through public markets are probably better off in other markets.  SOX is not the problem - it is the "rescue" packages that need to be repealed.

You can pay me now... Or, pay me later!

A study was released this week that examines worldwide regulatory compliance efforts and implementations in large organizations.  The results of this study are surprising, if not alarming, given the current state of the worldwide economy.  Sponsored by CA and conducted by GMG Insights, the study found that many organizations in Europe and the Asia/Pacific Region are not fully compliant with many regulations even though they are required to be.  For example, 46% of European companies and 50% of Asia/Pacific companies anonymously reported that they are not fully compliant with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  To be sure, these companies do not have very mature risk and control programs.  The researchers conducting the study concluded the following.

"The conclusion we come to, is that in-spite of the rising costs associated with compliance and the severe penalties that can come from non-compliance, organizations are still managing down to a “just enough to get by” strategy. In our opinion this strategy cannot be sustained. Organizations face exponential growth of regulations and systems affected by those regulations must be monitored. Managing compliance with an ad hoc approach subjects organizations to significant risks. Recognition of the organizational risk and the growing costs will ultimately drive the adoption of broader, enterprisewide compliance management solutions."

These companies and many others may believe they are saving money by addressing compliance in this fashion.  However, most will ultimately find that this short-term, ad hoc approach will not only lead to greater risk of potential non-compliance, but also to greater cost due to fragmented and duplicate activities.  As the mechanic says to his customer in the oil filter commercial, "you can pay me now..... or pay me later".