The Corporate End Run: Difference between revisions

From Discourse DB
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
mNo edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{item
{{item
|author=The New York Times editorial board
|author=The New York Times editorial board
|source=The New York Time
|source=The New York Times
|date=November 12, 2006
|date=November 12, 2006
|url=http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0F10F7345B0C718DDDA80994DE404482
|url=http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0F10F7345B0C718DDDA80994DE404482

Latest revision as of 01:03, November 23, 2006

This is an opinion item.

Author(s) The New York Times editorial board
Source The New York Times
Date November 12, 2006
URL http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FB0F10F7345B0C718DDDA80994DE404482
Quote
Quotes-start.png "Advocates of big business like to point to a sharp decline in the United States' share of global initial stock offerings between 2000 and 2005, hoping that everyone will infer that the cause was the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. In fact, that share had been declining since 1996, even before the Asian financial crisis. It hit bottom in 2001 and has risen since." Quotes-end.png


Add or change this opinion item's references


This item argues against the position Act should be reformed on the topic Sarbanes-Oxley Act.