The factor in customer relations that creates a power imbalance in favor of the customer is money. When audit firm partners are compensated based on their number of clients, they are more likely to be willing to do almost anything to satisfy their client. Auditor independence is compromised in the face of advisory fees, and GAAP interpretations will be pushed to extremes to satisfy client needs. As a result of this imbalance of power in favor of the customer, many companies went bankrupt, each in companies where financial statement misrepresentations had occurred, billions of dollars of investment and retirement were lost, and the perception that auditors were not independent of their clients was formed. Finally, in 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes/Oxley Act in response to massive accounting scandals. Particularly to address the problem of the imbalanced relationship in favor of the client, Sarbanes requires that boards of directors be independent of the organization and provide oversight over management and the audit function. Additionally, the board of directors, through its audit committee, is the “client” of the accounting firm. The audit committee must be composed of at least one person who is a financial expert, the other members must have knowledge of financial accounting and control and must be composed of "external" directors, not members of the audit committee. management or other relationships with the organization. During this time, they have oversight responsibilities of the internal audit and financial reporting process, are informed of all significant accounting decisions made by management and of changes in accounting systems and systems control. As for audit companies, the partners responsible for the audit mission, as well as other partners and managers having an important role in the audit, must leave the mission every five years. According to the case, the evidence collected by Hope that supported the USSC's assertion that the cost of the tooling modifications involved was simply stated by USSC officers. “On May 3, 1982, USSC officials informed Hope that in early 1981 they had asked More, Lacey's general manager, to make certain tooling changes that would result in improved efficiency of the production of USSC products. Executives then provided an elaborate and confusing explanation of why tooling changes were priced on a per-unit basis. However, the evidence supported the position that the costs were generic production expenses rather than non-current assets. According to generally accepted auditing standards, the main evaluation criteria that auditors should consider when evaluating evidence include 2 standards, the general standard and the field work standard..