The sweeping package to reform the Dodd-Frank bank reform law introduced in Congress has a provision that would curtail the reporting of accounting problems from about a third of issuers.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, has suggested modifications to his legislation introduced last September, according to a memo leaked last week to journalists, that would uproot Dodd-Frank to raise the limit for companies to comply with the requirement for an outside auditor’s opinion on a company’s internal controls over financial reporting, or ICFR.

That requirement was originally mandated by Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. In the memo, referred to by several new outlets who obtained a copy as Choice 2.0, Hensarling doubles the permanent exemption threshold from the original bill of last September, to $500 million in market capitalization from $250 million. The current exemption is $75 million. In Hensarling’s legislation, the exemption was also extended to depository institutions with less than $1 billion in assets.

A spokesman for the House Financial Services Committee did not respond to requests for comment.

MarketWatch analyzed data provided by research firm Audit Analytics of filings by all companies who received an ICFR opinion in 2015 from their external auditor to see how many companies and banks would be exempt from the requirement under the CHOICE Act 2.0 proposal.

There were 113 non-banks that reported adverse opinions on ICFR that would have been exempt from conducting the management assessment and audit review of these controls and reporting their negative results to investors and the SEC.

Here are the sorts of disclosures that would be excluded under the proposed bill:

• Lumber Liquidators LL, +0.13% , plagued by other problems related to the safety of its products the last few years, reported a material weakness last February related to its 2015 annual report criticizing controls over its accounting system that runs on SAP SAP, +1.03% software. This was a repeat of a problem the company had when it implemented the system in 2010 and its supply chain was affected, causing a decline in same-store sales.

• Avadel Pharmaceuticalsreported in March 2016 for its 2015 annual report that weaknesses in its accounting and reporting processes included a lack of sufficient personnel with enough knowledge, experience and training to manage its business requirements. The company also cited material weaknesses in its revenue recognition procedures, income tax accounting and reporting, information technology controls and controls over closing the books each month.

• Juniper Pharmaceuticals US:JNP reported material weaknesses that resulted in a restatement of its previously filed financial statements to correct material errors. The weaknesses were related to its accounting for significant contractual agreements and monitoring of expenses incurred under its clinical research agreements. Without the auditor’s review and report, the company would have likely still announced the restatement of prior period results but investors would have had no information about the detailed issues.

Three banks with less than $1 billion in assets —Santander Holdings USA, Inc. SAN, -2.87% , Lakeland Bancorp Inc. LBAI, +1.12% and MFC Bancorp Ltd. US:MFCB — also reported negative opinions on ICFR from their auditors in 2015.

The rate of financial restatements among companies with any ICFR opinion has increased in recent years, from 5.6% in 2010 to 8.4% in 2014, according to research from the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the independent audit regulator.

Reporting Year Number of Adverse ICFR Opinions Total ICFR Opinions % Adverse Opinions 2010 138 4009 3.4% 2011 175 4009 4.4% 2012 163 3887 4.2% 2013 186 3807 4.9% 2014 200 3863 5.2% Source: PCAOB, Percentage of Adverse ICFR Opinions 2010 – 2014

Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert and the vice chairwoman of ValueEdge Advisors, told MarketWatch, “This is an outrage. It isn’t just that investors and consumers will not have this information; the more significant problem is that knowing it will not be public, boards will think they do not have to investigate and make corrections.”

The Dodd-Frank exemption threshold of $75 million “is a perfectly acceptable number for establishing materiality,” said Minow. “Raising it allows companies to ignore significant problems until they become too big to fix.”

Companies under the exemption threshold could voluntarily disclose problems, however.

In 2015 138 companies with a market capitalization of less than $75 million, the current limit, voluntarily made the internal controls assessment and provided an auditor’s opinion to their investors despite not being required to do so. Fourteen of those companies, or 10.1%, of those reports contained negative opinions about their internal controls over financial reporting.

One company that voluntarily provided management’s assessment and its auditor’s opinion of ICFR in 2015 was Aviat Networks, despite having a market capitalization of only $65 million at the time. Aviat told shareholders and the SEC in its annual report filed in October 2015 that it had identified numerous material weaknesses in its controls over revenue recognition procedures and accounting activities, including controls over the accuracy of its inventory numbers.

The company had identified errors in its financial statements and said “the weaknesses resulted in a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim consolidated financial statements would not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.”