Posted on 09/27/2007 4:34:32 AM PDT by libstripper
Having dug itself into a hole with inept handling of the MoveOn.org ad and its aftermath, the New York Times Company may soon find itself unable to put down its shovel. Few ironies approach the richness of the mess the firm may face with the regulatory requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Sarbox).
The Times has been among the strongest public advocates of Sarbox and has criticized attempts to reform its costly demands. Sarbox was rushed through Congress in 2002 following the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Since then even Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer have voiced concerns about its heavy burden on business.
Now the New York Times Company, its management, and its directors all may face some awkward questions and possible legal and financial liabilities, if the information contained in Public Editor Clark Hoyt's column of September 23, 2007 is credited as true.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sarbanes-Oxley is prohibitively burdensome.
They have basically outlawed management decision making.
It’s delicious to see the Slimes run afoul of this monstrosity which it has done so much to promote.
I don’t know why any sane person would invest in the NY Slimes in the first place, but I hope they get their butts kicked by an investor lawsuit!!
Who knows Blackstone any more?
And by “it’s” I mean the emphasizing “belonging to it”, rather than the pedestrian and mundane “its”. The core ethos of the Constitution has been forgotten and stolen both.
Interesting that Ron Paul was 1 of only 3 congresspeople who opposed Sarbox.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.