A Report On The ' Show Stoppers '

In this case, there are several conspirators who is involved in the fraud receiving punishment from either SEC or federal government. Robert Levin, the AMRE executive and major stockholder, and Dennie D.Brown, the company’s chief accounting officer, were subject to the punishment in the form of a huge amount of fine by the SEC and the federal government. This punishment came from reasons. After AMRE going public, the company have the obligation to publish its financial reports but its performance did not meet expectation. The investigation by SEC shows that Robert took the first step of this scam, fearing the sharp drop of AMRE’s stock price because of the poor performance of company. He abetted Brown, to practice three main schemes to present a false appearance of profitable and pleasant financial reports. Firstly, they instructed Walter W.Richardson, the company’s vice president of data processing, to enter fictitious unset leads in the lead bank and they originally deferred the advertising cost mutiplying “cost per lead” and “unset leads” amount, so that they deferred a portion of its advertising costs in an asset account. The capitalizing of advertising expenses allowed them to inflate the net income for the first quarter of fiscal 1988. Secondly, at the end of the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 1988, they added fictitious inventory to AMRE’s ending inventory records, and prepared bogus inventory count sheets for the auditors. Thirdly, they overstated the percentage

An implicit theme of this case that I want students to recognize is the contrast between the persistent and vigorous efforts of David Sokol to “get to the bottom” of the suspicious items he uncovered in JWP’s accounting records versus what Judge William Conner referred to as the “spinelessness” of JWP’s auditors. The JWP audits were similar to most problem audits in that the auditors encountered numerous red flags and questionable entries in the client’s accounting records but, for whatever reason, apparently failed to thoroughly investigate those items. On the other hand, Sokol refused to be deterred in his investigation of the troubling accounting issues that he discovered. The relationships that existed between members of JWP’s accounting staff and the Ernst & Young audit team apparently influenced the outcome of the JWP audits. Of course, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The appellant company (Youyang) was trustee of a discretionary trust formed in 1974 for the Hayward family. Minter Ellison Morris Fletcher’s (Minters) had been acting for EC Consolidated Capital Limited (ECCCL) since July 1991, all work in connection with the drafting of the documents relating to the subscription for preference shares in ECCCL was dealt with by Minters. As part of the subscription agreement Youyang deposited $500,000 in Minters trust account. Minters was entitled to release a section of the fund from the trust account to ECCCL for the purchase of a bearer deposit certificate to be issued by Dresdner International Financial Markets (Australia) Ltd (DAL), which could then be traded on the money market. When the certificate was obtained Minters then had the right to release the remainder of the funds to ECCCL based on the subscription agreement.

For instance, the funds owed the company by the Rigas family went undisclosed in the statements, because the management at Adelphia deemed such disclosure as being “unnecessary” (Barlaup, Hanne, & Stuart, 2009). Given that Adelphia was a publicly traded company, the purposeful non-disclosure caused potential investors to rely on financial records that were grossly misleading. The inevitable result was the investors continued to inject money into a company that had all the appearances of profitability and sustained growth, but that was, in reality, rapidly becoming insolvent. Moreover, lending institutions also relied on the “independently-audited” financial statements, and they were more than eager to loan the company money, given Adelphia’s presumed state of financial “profitability.”

As consultants for Ancher Public Trading (APT), Learning Team A would like to discuss the implications of the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) legislation. This memorandum provides a brief history of SOX¡¦s creation, explains the relationship amongst the FASB, SEC and PCAOB, describes the pros and cons of SOX, assesses the impacts of SOX, and lists ethical considerations of SOX.

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related with the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the difference between a written and oral contract, and the results of recovering fees. Next, this review will analyze the business effect of the case as it relates to the monetary bottom line and Chuckrow’s attempt to protect his profits. Subsequently, it will highlight the unethical behavior of Chuckrow and its potential effects on future subcontractors’ trust in

Although this practice was not fraudulent, the plaintiffs insisted that Campbell had a responsibility to record a reserve or allowance in anticipation of substantial customer returns likely to result from theses “sales.” Despite the fact that a large percentage of product sold under guaranteed sales contracts was returned, the company’s accounting staff apparently never recorded appropriate reserves for those sales returns. The plaintiffs charged that PwC must have known about Campbell’s bogus sales, but

These scandals shared characteristics of skewed reporting of financial transactions. Congress hoped the Act would address the problems by holding senior management accountable for financial transactions and require more involvement from the board of directors. Several provisions of SOX are aimed toward strengthening corporate governance regarding antifraud efforts. Misreporting of the sales creates a false sense that United Thermostatic Controls met their budgeted sales numbers. Misreporting revenue violates multiple sections of SOX Act placing United Thermostatic Controls at risk. According to the SOX definition of internal control over financial reporting, United Thermostatic Controls is in violation because the company cannot provide reasonable assurance that the financial statements were prepared for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles specifically pertaining to the disposition of assets possessing a material effect on financial statements.

A major impetus behind the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was deliberate financial statement fraud. When committed on a large scale, billions of dollars can be lost and investor confidence in financial market will be reduced. Evidence suggests that the incidence of fraud has declined relative to the pre-SOX era. This can only be interpreted as suggesting that SOX

Issue: Should the Court rule as time-barred the Plaintiff’s claims which he makes under the Massachusetts ‘Blue Sky’ securities fraud statute and as lacking as a matter of law the Plaintiff’s claim on the Defendants’ unfair trade practices?

On 03/07/16 we received a broker invoice advising of an incurred increase in the amount of $1,180,064 (1,137,500 Loss & 42,564.14) along with a billing request for $1,269,607 (1,225,000 Loss & 44,606.94 in Lae). The only other information provided was Harco’s 03/03/16 loss report stating; no meritorious appellate issues, therefore the loss was settled for $5,000,000 with a supplemental payment of $112,000 for plaintiff’s taxable cost. Based on the limited information provided, an internet search was conducted finding that the case was tried with the plaintiff receiving a $6M verdict against the insured on 12/18/15. Based on the above, an inquiry was issued to Harco requesting details regarding their strategy to litigate this loss to a verdict with an explanation as to why the taxable cost of $112,000 was being ceded to reinsurers as an expense.

Ernst & Whinney should have evaluated the reliability of the insurance restoration contracts since it was created internally by ZZZZ Best. Furthermore, the limited details in the contracts as noted in the ten red flags that ZZZZ Best’s auditors allegedly overlooked should have raised certain professional skepticism of the auditors. While performing analytical procedures on ZZZZ Best’s financial statement, its auditors failed to notice the substantial excess in its profit margin for restoration projects comparing to the rest of the industry. Physical examination, although a very reliable type of evidence for auditors, was unreliable in this case. Barry Minkow and his accomplices went to great length to cover up their fraud and successfully deceived their auditor. Moreover, the auditors did not have the authority to corroborate evidence with outside third-party due to the confidentiality agreement with ZZZZ Best.

The Regular Show is an American surreal/paranormal comedic cartoon created by JG Quintel. It follows the lives of seven employees who work at a local Public Park simply known as “Park” (titled as a proper noun) in an unnamed part of the United States of America. Together, they maintain and manage the park as a public local attraction. In doing so, seemingly normal days somehow always end up with a Twilight Zone-esque paranormal twist, with bits of surreal and situational humor overlaying it to keep it kid-friendly. The show itself is very simple in its premise, though like any television series, it has undertones of basic sociological concepts and dynamics.

Certain proclamations in this press discharge may be advance looking in nature or "forward looking articulations" as characterized in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward looking comments held in this press discharge are liable to various dangers, patterns and questionable matters that could cause true execution to contrast tangibly from these forward looking articulations. Various those dangers, patterns and questionable matters are talked over in every organization's Sec

The individuals who may have otherwise purchased the shares of stock had the person not had insider information to move sooner on the purchase or sale of the stock.