沙賓法案(Sarbanes Oxley Act)第404條對我國在美國上市公司之影響

Abstract

美國於安隆事件暴發後，為重建大眾對財務報導的信心，於2002年簽署Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (以下簡稱：沙賓法案)並立即生效，。所有沙賓法案的條款中就屬第四章第404條對所有在美國上市公司的影響最大，該條文的立法目標是期望藉強化影響財務報導正確性及可靠性的內部控制制度，來重建公眾對上市公司財務報導的信賴。依第404條之規範，管理階層在年報中除了包含最近年度已查核的財務報表，還必須包括對於財務報導有關之內部控制的出具管理當局報告。 本研究期望透過分析我國在美國上市公司導入沙賓法案第404條的成本及其產生的效益，瞭解該法案對我國公司的影響並分析與美國本土公司及我國相關法令規範的差異，以作為沙賓法案甚至或我國相關法令修改依據。本研究先針對沙賓法案的立法精神及架構加以探討，並彙總整理。其次將個案公司的訪談及問卷資料蒐集與分析。而後，依所蒐集資料的內容及結果進行探討，主要分析為符合沙賓法案404條款的要求，個案公司所投入的資源及成本、對內部管理制度的影響以及對公司治理的影響。最後根據個案分析結果，探討我國在美國上市公司及美國本土公司導入沙賓法案404條款的差異，並針對沙賓法案404條款原立法精神及我國相關法令，依分析結果給予適切的建議。 本研究在比較對我國在美國上市公司的調查與美國本土上市公司調查發現，相似部份主要為內部稽核的投入、第一次導入皆使用外部顧問、第二年的遵循成本預計會下降以及改變企業文化。而主要差異部份為成本投入的內容，我國公司主要是書面化程度的加強，而美國本土公司則是內部控制缺失的改善。另外，在比較沙賓法案第404條及我國相似法令上，發現雖然立法精神及內容上差異並不大，但遵循的落實度上卻有很大的差異。

After Enron, the President of the United States signed up the Sarbanes Oxley Act (the Act) in 2002 to re-build the public trust. All listed companies need to comply with the Act and the section 404 of the Act is the most influential part. Section 404 is constructed for improving internal controls over financial reporting to rebuild the public trust. According to Section 404, all listed companies need to include not only the audited financial statements but also the management report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. The objective of this study is to understand the impact of section 404 on Foreign Private Issuers (FPIs) in Taiwan and to analyze the related regulatory differences between USA and Taiwan through analyzing the cost and benefits of section 404 readiness. The study will firstly focus on analyzing and summarizing the principles and structure of the Act, and the implementation approach for section 404 compliance. Secondly, it will summarize the results of interview questions for the case-study companies. Thirdly, it will analyze those results to understand the impact on cost, benefit, internal management system and corporate governance while these companies are implementing their section 404 readiness. And last, it will analyze the difference between FPIs and listed US companies, and, in addition, provide subsequent amendment suggestions to the Act and the related Taiwan regulations according to the analytical results. After performing comparison between FPIs and listed US companies, the study identifies the similar areas which are the involvement of internal audit, involvement of external consultants for the year-one implementation, expectation of cost reduction for year-two compliance, and changes of corporate culture. Despite the similarities, the major difference resides on the resource spending area: FPIs in Taiwan spend most of their resources on documentation; yet, listed US companies spend most of their time to remediate weaknesses. Furthermore, the efforts spent in regulatory compliance are very different between the Act and the similar regulations in Taiwan although the principles and contents are quite the same.