A clash of attitudes colors the current debate over the extent to which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) should apply to small public companies. The most visible argument is that small companies should not have to shoulder the same compliance burdens as large companies do, simply because they can't afford to. But that premise is being challenged by studies, derided by a number of commentators, and viewed with public skepticism even by some SEC Commissioners. It assumes that were money no object, small and large companies should be regulated the same. If that assumption is true, then any argument for relaxed compliance that hinges on expense is vulnerable. Cost seldom satisfies as a reason for not doing something that ought otherwise be done. However, it is wrong to assume that the main difference between small and large companies is how much money they have. Large and small companies play very different roles in the national economy and in the minds of investors. The very large companies really are different than their smaller brethren, and not just because they have more money.
Aegis J. Frumento'Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me,' F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote. To which Hemingway retorted, 'Yes. They have more money.'
A similar clash of attitudes colors the current debate over the extent to which the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) should apply to small public companies.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN LawJournalNewsletters
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
An annual tradition continues as we present the responses to our Legalweek question. For 2026, it was "where are we with prompting"?
The volume and sophistication of work hitting law firm marketing departments is accelerating. That moves the burden from responding to being ready: ready with differentiated positioning, ready with competitive intelligence, ready to get a compelling pitch to the right client before a formal process even begins. That requires more sophisticated output, produced faster, by teams that are already stretched past capacity.
In categories where products are difficult to differentiate on performance, and that describes most of the AI industry today, customers do not choose on features, they choose on trust. Brand integrity, in those markets, is a material business asset.
The annals of copyright decisions could provide a reasonably representative catalog of what our culture has been up to over the past 200 years. A Feb. 3 decision from the Southern District of New York is a case in point. It involves a sex-trafficking conspiracy, Tweets attacking a troubled crypto firm, and a claimed transfer of copyright ownership through a restitution order in a criminal case, all over an undercurrent of competing First Amendment and victim-privacy concerns.
Matthew McConaughey secured eight federal trademark registrations covering his voice and iconic catchphrases in a novel legal strategy aimed at combating AI’s unauthorized use of his voice and likeness. The move signals an important evolution in the power dynamics between talent/brands and the companies providing generative AI tools.
