Anderson Case Study

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act and the Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, was signed into law on July 30, 2002, by President George W. Bush as a direct response to the corporate financial scandals of Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco International (Arens & Elders, 2006; King & Case, 2014;Rezaee & Crumbley, 2007). Fraudulent financial activities and substantial audit failures like those of Arthur Andersen and Ernst and Young had destroyed public trust and investor confidence in the accounting profession. The debilitating consequences of these perpetrators and their crimes summoned a massive effort by the government and the accounting profession to fight all forms of corruption through regulatory, legal, auditing, and accounting changes.

Without a question the BOD should have placed a high degree of reliance on Andersen, which at the time was one of the most prestigious worldwide accounting firms. The auditors should have known the kind of accounting taking place in Enron. In my opinion, Andersen knew, at least to some extent, the company’s financial condition. However, Enron was already too deep under water that blowing the whistle so late would have created problems for Andersen as well. According to the case, on 02/05/01, Andersen held internal meeting during which it addressed the company’s accounting from and oversight of the LJM partnership. Andersen never discussed these concerns with the Audit and Compliance Committee. Although the BOD has its faults, it should have been able to rely on Andersen’s work.

Arthur Andersen (AA) contributed to the Enron disaster when it has failed to the management by failing to have Enron establish and enforce its own internal control. There has been flaws to AA‘s internal control. There has been assumption that AA partners were too motivated by revenue recognition thus, overlooking several criteria when providing their services to Enron. Additionally, AA also recognised the retention of audit clients as vital and a loss of any clients would be disadvantaged to an auditor’s career. In AA internal control, the person who is able to make most of the decisions is the person who is most concerned about the revenue or losses of the client’s company.

5. There were multiple red flags that were obvious in this case. The SEC ruled that BDO Seidman's independence was jeopardized because the auditors were irresponsible in auditing and paying attention to the red flags that were shown in the company’s financial statements. In the

Between the years 2000 and 2002 there were over a dozen corporate scandals involving unethical corporate governance practices. The allegations ranged from faulty revenue reporting and falsifying financial records, to the shredding and destruction of financial documents (Patsuris, 2002). Most notably, are the cases involving Enron and Arthur Andersen. The allegations of the Enron scandal went public in October 2001. They included, hiding debt and boosting profits to the tune of more than one billion dollars. They were also accused of bribing foreign governments to win contacts and manipulating both the California and Texas power markets (Patsuris, 2002). Following these allegations, Arthur Andersen was investigated for, allegedly,

Andersen – Although Enron committed the fraud, Andersen allowed Enron to get away with it. An audit firm has to be independent from their client and act in the best interest of the public. For this reason, I think that Andersen was the most responsible for the Enron crisis. Andersen could have declined continuing their relationship with Enron as their client, considering some Andersen representatives did not agree with Enron’s “aggressive” accounting and financial reporting decisions in the early months of 2001. Andersen also assisted Enron in restructuring some of the SPEs so they would still be considered unconsolidated entities. Andersen not only audited Enron, but they also went beyond the scope of what the quality audit should entail. It was also telling when personnel in the Houston office destroyed documents related to Enron and

3. In testimony before Congress, George Greenspan reported that one means he used to audit the insurance restoration contracts was to verify that his client actually received payment on those jobs. How can such apparently reliable evidence lead an auditor to an improper conclusion?

In 1913, the company Arthur Andersen started by Arthur Andersen and Clarence Delany by the name of Andersen, Delany, & Co. In 1918, it was given the name Arthur Andersen & Co. The company supplied tax, consulting services and auditing for the large business, and itself had a position in the "Big Five" accounting firms. In 2002, this firm was found guilty for auditing an energy corporation, Enron and it surrendered back its rights of auditing. This led to Enron 's bankruptcy and loss of 85,000 jobs.

For purposes of this question, assume that the excerpts from the Powers Report shown in Exhibit 3 provide accurate descriptions of Andersen’s involvement in Enron’s accounting and financial reporting decisions. Given this assumption, do you believe that Andersen’s involvement in those decisions violated any professional auditing standards? If so, list those standards and briefly explain your rationale.

3. What would you have done if you had been the controller and had made recommendations to disclose the reversal of the reserves?

Assigned auditors were more than aware of the accounting misrepresentation of financial statements, overstating net income. Still instead of walking away from the client and resign, Andersen in pursuing short-term goals stayed with the company and moreover played by the Giant’s rules. More and more accounting firms at that time started to provide consulting services along with auditing to the same companies which always indicates a conflict of interests. Auditors are the guardians and rules players where consultants are giving advices and showing how to avoid some accounting oversights. Andersen also in order to make good profits stepped on the side of combining two contradicting to each other services. Waste Management had lots of former Arthur Andersen employees which also led to close ties between two companies. That situation undoubtedly led to inability to turn down fraudulent accounting practices Waste Management was exercising at that time for a long period of time.

4. a) Since the purchasing agent receive perks and kickbacks from vendors. Therefore, this is a corruption of fraud. The auditor would have identified the risk primarily through review of industry trends.

Enron and Arthur Anderson were both giants in their own industry. Enron, a Texas based company in the energy trading business, was expanding rapidly in both domestic and global markets. Arthur Anderson, LLC. (Anderson), based out of Chicago, was well established as one of the big five accounting firms. But the means by which they achieved this status became questionable and eventually contributed to their demise. Enron used what if often referred to as “creative” accounting methods, this resulted in them posting record breaking earnings. Anderson, who earned substantial audit and consultation fees from Enron, failed to comply with the auditing standards required in their line of work. Investigations and reports have resulted in finger

To make matters worse, when Andersen found problems in the financial statements, they didn’t make corrections due to a conflict of interest. The concern was that if Andersen brought these problems to light, Enron would walk away and cost Andersen millions of dollars in the long run. Andersen contemplated dropping Enron as a client, but did not follow through with it. Because the audit and consulting was done at the same firm, it clouded Andersen’s judgment. Andersen employees in Houston began shredding documents and therefore brought obstruction of justice charges that destroyed the firm.

WorldCom acquired Arthur Andersen as the independent external auditing for the company. As WorldCom grew after the merger with MCI, Andersen began to invoice less than they should have. The charges were defended as an opportunity to prolong business with WorldCom. (Kaplan and Kiron, 2007). This is an immediate red flag for a company. Where were the ethical practices of the independent auditor? If the auditor has no ethics, how can one possibly be assured that the company is performing its intended function appropriately? The board of directors should have immediately been informed of Andersen’s practices and made a decision to confront Andersen’s practices and possibly obtain new independent auditors.