3 ms·
> Not "you should have known better." If by this you mean that ignorance is a defense, Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted specifically, in the wake of Enron, to remove
by camelite 13y ago
> Not "you should have known better."
If by this you mean that ignorance is a defense, Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted specifically, in the wake of Enron, to remove this defense. CEOs sign a statement each year attesting that they do know, and they can be prosecuted for lying about it.
From a speech Cynthia Glassman gave:
Recognizing that awareness must precede action, Sarbanes-Oxley and the
Commission’s rules require the CEO and Board to make certain that procedures are in
place to ensure that they hear bad news. Under the Commission’s recently adopted
rules, these procedures must ensure that all material information - both financial and
non-financial – gets to those responsible for reporting it to the investing public.
- jt2190 13y agoThe legal principle you're referring to is indeed an old one: Ingorantia juris non excusat [1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat