Skip to Main Content
Article navigation
Purpose

To provide guidance to investment companies on document retention policies based on Section 802 of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, codified as Section 1519 of the United States Code.

Design/methodology/approach

Reviews the conviction of Arthur Andersen for obstruction of justice based on the way the firm implemented its document retention/destruction policy as Enron was collapsing, and the Supreme Court reversal of that conviction. Explains why the Supreme Court decision should no longer guide an investment company's document retention/destruction policy in light of more recently enacted Section 1519, which imposes stiff penalties on anyone who knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, or covers up any record or document with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence any federal investigation, or in contemplation of such a proceeding.

Findings

Suggests a few straightforward rules for an investment company's document retention/destruction policy with a warning to err on the side of caution.

Originality/value

In light of Section 1519, every investment company needs to review its document retention/destruction policy. This article provides useful guidelines for doing so.

You do not currently have access to this content.
Don't already have an account? Register

Purchased this content as a guest? Enter your email address to restore access.

Please enter valid email address.
Email address must be 94 characters or fewer.
Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
Rental

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal