Below is a link to a discussion by Norman Marks. Please read Norman’s blog post. The following are my comments about the Sox 302 violation. In appropriate cases it would also be helpful for the SEC to discuss the actions or inactions of the audit committee and internal audit, such as in the factual background information – not necessarily to find fault or not with the audit committee or internal audit, but to bring them more in the public focus. The audit committee apparently was not aware of the situation – the committee has an oversight responsibility only; however, it would be useful to know some of the activities that the audit committee performed. Similarly, internal audit, if used correctly, might have been useful to detect the problems. I would want to know how internal audit was functioning, or not, and how it might be improved to benefit the audit committee’s oversight and the shareholders.
Dave Tate, Esq.
http://tatetalk.com
P.S. – I am told by a friend that the company is not listed on the NYSE, and accordingly there is no internal audit requirement. Thank you Michael. I have to acknowledge that I did not confirm the listing exchange. That raises a whole host of other issues – such as, if there is no internal audit requirement, which companies should nevertheless decide to implement that function anyway? DT
SEC and SOX plus COSO 2013 News | Norman Marks on Governance, Risk Management, and Audit.
AUDIT COMMITTEES, D&O, BUSINESS, COMPLIANCE, RISK, AUDITING, INVESTIGATIONS & LITIGATION 