Comments on: The GAO Report and Stoneridge – My Audacious Hope

By: re: The Auditors » Blog Archive » Barney Less Than Frank About Auditor Reform

Sat, 22 Jan 2011 16:22:35 +0000

[...] my hopes, is some variation of the Specter bill to repeal a 2007 Supreme Court decision known as Stoneridge that makes it considerably more difficult to hold third-parties like accounting firms legally [...]

By: Francine McKenna: Will Auditors Ever Answer to Investors for Aiding and Abetting?

Fri, 02 Jul 2010 23:23:23 +0000

[...] Gorman lays out the opposing views of the Supreme Court on the original Stoneridge decision in a way that highlights the pro-business versus pro-investor bias inherent in the decision. In [...]

By: Oversight for the Better

Oversight for the Better — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:39:00 +0000

If there’s enough of an activist in you, here are some groups working to reduce or eliminate the dominance large corporations have over every aspect of our existence:

The Alliance for Democracy – “Progressive populist movement to end the domination of the economy, government, culture, media, and the environment by large corporations.”

POCLAD (Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy) – “a group of persons instigating democratic conversations and actions that contest the authority of corporations to define our cultures…”

By: Oversight for the Better

Oversight for the Better — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 15:29:00 +0000

If there’s enough of an activist in you, here are some groups working to reduce or eliminate the dominance large corporations have over every aspect of our existence:

The Alliance for Democracy – “Progressive populist movement to end the domination of the economy, government, culture, media, and the environment by large corporations.”

POCLAD (Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy) – “a group of persons instigating democratic conversations and actions that contest the authority of corporations to define our cultures…”

By: Independent Accountant

Independent Accountant — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:06:00 +0000

I agree with anonymous about corporations. Thomas Jefferson opposed their existence, feeling they led to abuses. What can be done? Reduction of limited liability. How? By becoming an officer of a publicly-held company, you assume liability for some of the corporation’s debts, like a general partner in a partnership. I have no formula that might make sense and no idea of what to do about “pre-existing” debts.
Adolph A. Berle, a Columbia Law Professor and FDR “Brain Truster” wrote about the problem of the separation of ownership and control in the 1930s. This is a long-standing problem as you are aware.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:57:00 +0000

Independent accountant-

I wasn't talking about reform related to CPA firms. Perhaps the corporation, as currently constructed, is the problem. If you go back 100-150 years, there was much discussion of this very problem.

Corporate personhood in some ways tends to work against the notion of personal responsibility. Same goes for the distance it creates between between ownership and management.

What to do about it? I have no idea. But what we have now is not working.

Now there's a worthwhile project for a lawyer!

By: Independent Accountant

Independent Accountant — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:43:00 +0000

No insitutional revision will work. We’ve had 31 years of CPA firm “reforms” with no substantial changes.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:24:00 +0000

As long as he emphasizes the term evil, independent accountant may have a point.

The long-term solution probably lies in another direction, though. Something will eventually have to be done about the way large corporations function in the US today. Perhaps some institutional revisions are the cure.

By: Independent Accountant

Independent Accountant — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:42:00 +0000

Francine:
I have been calling the plaintiffs’ bar a necessary evil for about 30 years. I’ve got some posts about it at my blog. I have one coming about Stoneridge. Don’t miss it.