Would more contingent liabilities disclosure make Sarbox compliance hard?

The FASB is responding to what it says is investor concern that current rules "do not provide adequate information to assist users of financial statements in assessing the likelihood, timing, and amount of future cash flows associated with loss contingencies" (mainly potential losses from lawsuits). Its proposal for more disclosure of information (going beyond Regulation S-K Item 103) is being met with a vehement response from the corporate community. They say that more disclosure would give plaintiff lawyers insight into trial strategies and litigation assessment, providing a road map to sue, reports CFO.com. An audit would be complicated as guidelines for how to audit and treat expanded disclosures would have to be drawn. Unsurprisingly, Sarbanes-Oxley has been pulled into the fray. Opponents say executives at companies with lots of suits pending (a lot of Wall Street firms these days) could not reasonably be asked to sign 302 and 906 certifications. Of course, you could say that about a lot of things.  

For more:
- here's the CFO.com article

Related Articles:
Time to think about disclosure of climate effects
Activist presses for Sarbox costs disclosure