Today the US Supreme Court ruled on a Nevada case involving constitutionality of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley (Sarbox) accounting regulations pertaining to appointments to the independent public company accounting oversight board.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Sarbox regulations or law remains intact, however the process or controls around the oversight board must change.
My interpretation and perspective from reading a few different reports is that Sarbox as you know and love (or hate) it is essentially still intact. However what has changed or will be is that individual board members can now be removed or at least in an easier manner. Instead of the request to strike down the Sarbox regulations, the Supreme Court instead appears to have left the regulations intact instead ruling that board members can be changed or removed.
What does this all mean?
Perhaps not much other than firms who have been making money on Sarbox now having something else to talk or consult about (Hmmm, a Sarbox stimulus?).
On the other hand, with the ability to have Sarbox board members more easily removed, perhaps we will see a new board installed that could influence the thinking and thus applicability of Sarbox activity.
Near term, I can see this as being non news for some, and for others, confusion and lets not forget that in chaos or confusion there is opportunity.
Here are some links to read more
Nuff said about this for now, whats your take?