by Matha Doran
The spectacle of scandals in the US and Europe turned up the heat on the growing reform movement, both in trying to harmonize accounting standards and corporate governance.
By Dr. Yvonne Hinson
IFRS will most likely come to the U.S. in some form but the timeline is still unknown. The differences between IFRS and GAAP are something that educators need to be addressing now as they send students out into a global marketplace.
By Ken Marshall, Co-leader of Ernst & Young LLP’s IFRS Markets team in the United States.
If economics be the dismal science, then the global slump that began in 2007 makes it seem still more so. With America’s regulators preoccupied with managing the credit crisis and its companies facing the imperative to cut costs — including on projects that require a long-term commitment of resources, what once appeared almost certain momentum toward US adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) has slowed.
At the same time, there seems near universal agreement that a single global set of accounting policies and financial reporting standards would benefit investors. International standards setters and regulators, including the US Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), its counterpart the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), and the US Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) all share the view that comparability between US and other countries’ accounting standards will increase transparency in the global marketplace and protect investors.
Janice Patrisso, Advisory Partner with KPMG LLP, explains that many organizations are looking at their readiness for potential U.S. adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). What should you expect?
General Electric was not only the only company to find itself in hot water this week. Huron Consulting Group out of Chicago, like GE, is now staring down its own accounting scandal with the CEO and CFO already casualties.
Yesterday it was announced that GE would be paying a $50 settlement fine to the SEC in response to a civil suit filed by the agency against the company for accounting fraud. GE is paying the fine, but without admitting guilt nor denying the allegations.
Rebekah Poston and Gregory Bates — Squire, Sanders & Dempsey
When the economic going gets tough, multinational companies might be tempted to cut costs by cutting back on steps needed to comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
But the Department of Justice is on record that it and the Securities and Exchange Commission don’t expect to cut back on the number of FCPA investigations and prosecutions. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) collected more than $924 million in combined penalties from corporations and individuals for FCPA violations. And lead DOJ Prosecutor Mark Mendelsohn recently – and pointedly – noted that even though the global economic crisis presents “a grave challenge in the fight against foreign bribery … companies need to be especially vigilant in this economic climate not to cut back. Our law enforcement efforts are not going to be scaled back, and so it would be, I think, a grave mistake for a company to take that path.”
Instituting policies and procedures that implement the Guidelines and practicing effective due diligence are two bedrock fundamentals of FCPA compliance and risk mitigation.
Earlier this month Forbes released its annual List of the 100 Most Trustworthy Companies in America for 2009. View the five most trustworthy companies in the small-cap, mid-cap, and large-cap categories, with links to the full lists.
In this week’s Compliance Blog Roundup, we begin by continuing our discussion of the controversial AIG bonuses. Other links include failures by the Big Four, limitations with France’s international bribery enforcement, and the case for more compliance.
Currently FASB is looking at ways in which the accounting process can be changed in order to address investor complaints, and is planning huge changes for financial statements.
