Critically assess the rationale for the key post-Enron reforms of the US board of directors and comment briefly on whether the experience of US corporations since their adoption is compatible with the claim that the reforms led to an improvement in US corporate governance.

Student Assignment Guidelines

Careful study of Unit 5 and Chapter 3 of Monks and Minnow (2012) are essential to preparations for this assignment. In addition to these sources you may also find the study by Erkens et al. (2012) useful in carrying out the assignment task.

The assignment is made up of two key elements. The first element requires an assessment of the rationale for the noteworthy changes to US boards that resulted from the corporate governance failings highlighted by the collapse of Enron and other corporations. In this respect you may wish to consider the merits of the increased weight attached to independent directors, the splitting of the roles of CEO and Chair, and whether ex-CEOs should be allowed to continue on the board. The second element of the assignment asks you to evaluate whether the post-Enron experience of US corporations suggests the reforms led to improvements in the corporate governance of large US corporations? Does the empirical evidence suggest stronger compliance with the newly reformed corporate governance codes led to improvements in the governance of US corporations? Credit will be given for the use of empirical evidence to support the discussion and critical thinking.