 |
Sarbanes-Oxley News & Developments
Rites of PrivacyWith the dust settling on Sarbox compliance in the public sector, eyes turn to private companies.
> > Much has been made in the past year about the potential tab for complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as well as the burden in terms of man-hours and liability. So it is logical to assume that any company that did not have to comply would not comply. Think again.
At Cargill, Inc., adhering to Sarbox is not required, because they are a private company. However, as part of a decision to operate within the spirit of the act, the board of directors at Cargill has made a number of changes, including shaving the maximum amount of time a lead audit partner can serve from seven to five years. The company also started disclosing material details of its off-balance-sheet dealings and explaining them in the Management Discussion and Analysis section. Says CFO Robert Lumpkins - given all that was going on -the scandals, Sarbanes-Oxley -we thought it was time to reexamine our processes.
Cargill is not the only private company adapting. Almost 40% of nonpublic-company CFOs say their companies would benefit from implementing elements of the year-old law, according to a recent survey of 356 CFOs by Robert Half International.
Source: CFO
Published:2003-11-03
|
|
