A Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce study released back in 2006 says the new Sarbanes-Oxley law imposes "expensive compliance burdens on small companies, such as biotech and life science firms that are crucial to the future of the Massachusetts economy".
"While Sarbanes-Oxley was designed to improve corporate governance and accountability, the law’s unexpectedly high compliance costs could divert the limited resources of a small firm away from innovation and growth", said chamber chief executive Paul Guzzi, who recommends that the law’s compliance requirements for small companies be revised.
Start-ups that might otherwise consider selling shares to the public might delay an initial public stock offering because of compliance costs imposed by the law on publicly traded companies.
Do you think there should be different laws to firms depending on their size? Also, do you think there should be some other important characteristics, besides size, that need to be taken into consideration when imposing Sarbanes-Oxley requirements?
No, I think the laws should be uniform within a given industry. The fact that a company is "small" or "large" has no bearing on the product it produces, etc. If the burden is too onerous for a particular company, it should find another field of business.
April 23rd, 2010 at 6:59 am
No, I think the laws should be uniform within a given industry. The fact that a company is "small" or "large" has no bearing on the product it produces, etc. If the burden is too onerous for a particular company, it should find another field of business.
References :