Arthur Andersen Case Study

     An act of chivalry is described as the qualifications or character of the ideal knight. Knights were expected to uphold this code of conduct. In the English literature Le Morte d?Arthur, French for ?The Death of Arthur?, by Sir Thomas Malory, the characters display acts of chivalry from beginning to end. Though the code of chivalry contains many qualities or acts, nevertheless bravery, loyalty, and courtly love are demonstrated more throughout this literature.

Arthur Anderson Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) was established in 1913 into the Accounting industry. They offered tax, consulting, and, auditing services to large corporations everywhere. Their headquarters were located in Chicago, Illinois and eventually had over 85,000 employees in 84 different countries (Collins, 2016). By the 1990’s Arthur Andersen had become one of the largest accounting firms, and was recognized as one of the “big five.” Along with being one of the largest accounting firms Arthur Andersen was also one of the most reputable. There were many factors that distinguished Arthur Andersen from other accounting firms, and the most notable were the honesty and integrity Arthur Andersen had established for the company (Moore & Crampton, 2000). Andersen set high standards which in turn resulted in the growth of their prestige. Many companies came to Arthur Andersen because of the trust it had established in the public and in the accounting Industry. One of the ways Arthur Andersen established their reputation was through their organizational structure and the culture of the company.

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.

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

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.

1 - What were the business risks Enron faced, and how did those risks increase the likelihood of material misstatements in Enron’s financial statements?

If the name of King Arthur is mentioned, I suppose what comes to mind is not so much one person as a whole array of characters and themes, a montage so to speak. Of course we do think first of the King, the magnificent monarch of a glorified or idealized medieval realm. But we think also of his Queen, of the fair and wayward Guinevere, we think of his enchanter, Merlin, who presided over his birth, who set him on the throne, who established him there in the early and traveled days of his reign. There were the knights of the Round Table, vowed to the highest ideals of chivalry, and the greatest of them, Sir Lancelot, who, of course, has a tragic love affair with the Queen. There is another great love story, that of Tristan

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.

Lindberg and Beck (2002) claim that auditor independence is hailed as the “cornerstone” in the accounting profession as it is the core reason as to why the public trusts their professional opinion. However, since 2000, many accounting fraud scandals have negatively impacted public opinion on the legitimacy of the audit profession and, if in fact, its independence is uninfluenced by other parties. One of the scandals being the sudden collapse of Enron, given that a few months prior its bankruptcy its auditors Arthur Andersen, which was one of the five largest audit and accounting firms, claimed that Enron was financially healthy, but in fact they were paid off

At the time the fraud existed, internal controls were almost non-existent. The management team employed a number of improper accounting practices that did not comply with GAAP. As stated earlier, CEO Dean Buntrock not only allowed internal controls to be bypassed, he encouraged them to be ignored and shaped accounting policy with the sole purpose of making the targeted earnings numbers every year. The auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, LLP, was also shown to have complicity. The partners at Andersen knew that the company’s policies were not compliant so they provided Waste Management with proposed adjusting entries to their books. Waste Management refused to make the adjustments so Andersen had Waste Management sign off on a list of 32 steps the company must do to change its practices. The document legally constituted an agreement among the two parties and clearly shows that Andersen was aware of fraud that Waste Management had covered up in the past. Furthermore, Andersen did not stand up to the company and continued to

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

Fraud is defined as something that is intended to deceive people and error is defined as something unintentionally done wrong, e.g. as a result of poor judgment or lack of care by Encarta English Dictionary. After the collapse of great companies like Enron, and World com to mention a few, it has raised eyebrows the involvement of auditors in these failed companies and have put the importance of effective corporate governance in the spotlight. It was well documented fact that Arthur Anderson the auditors were involved in the Enron

Arthur Andersen supplied external auditing service to Enron since 1980s, internal auditing since 1990s. The long-term cooperation between Arthur Andersen and Enron blurred the lines between external auditor and the company under auditing. Many accountants of Enron were ex-employees of Arthur Andersen. The close relation between the Arthur Andersen and Enron led to the