US act goes too far, say businesses

European business leaders yesterday lined up to attack the Sarbanes-Oxley act, with one company chief revealing that the legislation had forced his business to abandon a US listing.

They said the act, introduced after the recent spate of financial and accounting scandals in the US and sharply tightened corporate governance rules, went too far and imposed too many costs and burdens on businesses.

Their complaints came as the European Union sought to bolster its own defences further against boardroom malfeasance, with the launch of the corporate governance forum at a conference in the Hague.

The forum will bring together 15 experts and advise the European Commission and member states on corporate governance reform in the EU.

The move follows a string of proposals by the Commission to fight corporate malfeasance, though few go as far as Sarbanes-Oxley.

Mr Gert-Jan Kramer, chairman of Fugro, a Netherlands-based engineering consultancy, told the conference that Sarbanes-Oxley had "killed off" any hopes the company had of seeking a US listing.

The Euronext-listed company has a turnover of €1 billion, a third of which is generated in the US, and boasts US board members.

However, Mr Kramer said: "We would seek to list in the US if it were not for Sarbanes-Oxley. The needs of entrepreneurs are not best served by the act. It would be suicidal to list there."

Sarbanes-Oxley was also criticised by Bernd Stecher, corporate vice-president of Siemens, which is listed in Germany and the US.

Mr Stecher told the European Corporate Governance Conference the strictures of the act presented a "huge problem" for companies. "The act is a detriment to listing in the US." Some businesses have in the past also raised concerns over the launch of the EU forum, fearing that the 15-strong body could play a role in creating an EU-wide corporate governance code that would push aside long-established national rules.

Mr Frits Bolkestein, the EU internal market commissioner, insisted, however, that the group would not play any role in actual legislation, or in advising on legislation.