Sarbanes-Oxley §404 continues to sow a wide swath of worry and denunciation virtually world-wide.  From a UK perspective, the requirements are seen as American "imperialism" and the value of a US-exchange listing is increasingly being called into question.  Firms that already have experience with the US "exporting" its legal requirements (with, for example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act) are perhaps more ready to call into question the value of SOX compliance.  For a large multinational firm with innumerable transactions across the globe, §404 compliance, far from providing tangible "good governance" benefits, is seen as "utterly futile box ticking."

Meanwhile, on this side of the pond, firms are struggling mightily to get their arms around records management.  Many, to be sure, have paper record policies and procedures in place, but as for electronic records?  Don't even ask:  According to this poll, 5 out of 6 respondents have zero confidence they could uncover record-retention violations.

Partly this is for simple lack of training:  60% of firms report they do none whatsoever.  But the fundamental problem is having the wrong people at the table when electronic record-retention review policies are being considered:  Two-thirds do not include a lawyer.  In light of that, the poll results are no surprise.