Sponsored Links

Court strikes down part of Sarbanes-Oxley law

People stand at the foot of the steps of the Supreme Court, May 20, 2009. REUTERS/Molly Riley

People stand at the foot of the steps of the Supreme Court, May 20, 2009.

Credit: Reuters/Molly Riley

WASHINGTON | Mon Jun 28, 2010 2:45pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a law to prevent fraud committed by companies like Enron and WorldCom, saying a board to police public companies' auditors violated the Constitution.

But the ruling left the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law and the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board largely intact, limiting the decision's impact on government efforts to curb corporate wrongdoing.

"The Sarbanes-Oxley Act dodged a bullet and victory can be declared by the PCAOB and the proponents of Sarbanes-Oxley," said Jim Cox, a securities professor at the Duke University School of Law.

The court ruled 5-4 that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, known as the PCAOB, violated the Constitution because it does not give presidential administrations enough power to remove board members. The court ruled that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission should have the power to fire the board's members.

But the court held that the unconstitutional provisions can be separated from the rest of the law -- effectively keeping lawmakers and lobbyists from tinkering with the rest of Sarbanes-Oxley.

The SEC, the PCAOB, investors and the auditing community applauded the Supreme Court's decision.

"The PCAOB has played a vital role in improving the quality of public company financial reports," said the Council of Institutional Investors, which represents investors with more than $3 trillion in assets. "Shareowners depend on fair, accurate financial statements in making investment decisions."

The ruling comes as lawmakers prepare to vote on the biggest overhaul of financial regulation since the 1930s. Congress hopes to send the legislation to President Barack Obama to sign into law by July 4.

Supporters of Sarbanes-Oxley feared that a broader Supreme Court ruling would force Congress to revisit the entire act in order to keep the PCAOB functioning.

The legislation before Congress already waters down part of Sarbanes-Oxley, by exempting small companies from complying with a part of the 2002 corporate reform law.

At stake in the Supreme Court case was how corporate America is audited.

The board, set up as a quasi-private agency, has the power to impose rules and to inspect and fine accounting firms.

The board is funded through fees it collects from public companies. It inspects thousands of auditors, including the Big Four accounting firms: Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche LLP.

The Free Enterprise Fund and a small Nevada accounting firm sued in 2006, arguing the law unconstitutionally stripped the president of power to appoint or remove board members or to supervise their activities. A federal judge and a U.S. appeals court rejected the challenge.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts said the limits on the removal of board members violated the separation of powers requirement.

Writing for the four liberal dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court's holding "threatens to disrupt severely the fair and efficient administration of the laws."

The Obama administration and the board's attorneys had urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law. Defenders of the law said it helped restore investor confidence in the stock market and had improved the quality of corporate audits.

The law forced companies to disclose more information, required managers to sign off on financial statements and imposed audit requirements on firms. It has been criticized for driving up business costs and making the United States a less-attractive location than some other global markets.

The accounting industry used to regulate itself and was criticized for weak standards and enforcement, as well as potential conflicts of interests because private regulators were dependent on industry for funding.

The Supreme Court case is Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, No. 08-861.

(Reporting by Rachelle Younglai and James Vicini. Additional reporting by Emily Chasan in New York. Editing by Robert MacMillan.)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (11)
user4301 wrote:
So, how much of the SEC is now illegal??

Jun 28, 2010 11:24am EDT  --  Report as abuse
“Michael A. Carvin and Noel J. Francisco, partners at the giant law firm Jones Day, are taking on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the controversial anti-fraud legislation passed after the last big wave of corporate scandals. The two are representing Brad Beckstead, the head of a small auditing firm in Henderson, Nev., who is suing the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the panel created by SarbOx to make sure auditors are doing their jobs. Beckstead says the PCAOB picked apart his business in a grueling 2004 audit. “I became the poster boy for what not to do when auditing small companies,” he says. The cost of complying with the rules was so great, he claims, that he had to abandon his auditing practice.” this is from a 2009 Businessweek article. These two lawyers, by the way, took up the case for free.

Jun 28, 2010 11:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
jdave52 wrote:
I would posit that just about every single law enacted by this Congress should be stricken down as every one of them violates the US Constitution. How about that? The current administration has utter disdain for that founding document, and every action it takes is in violation of it. Congress and the White House won’t even protect US citizens at our borders, nor act decisively to clean up oil threatening our shores.

Jun 28, 2010 12:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.