Leslie Fay Companies

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

Appendix A.2 also lists several factors that could provide opportunities for management/employees to commit fraud. One factor that could lead to fraud is if, “There is ineffective monitoring of management as a result of: domination of management by a single person or small group without compensating controls.” The auditors should have taken notice of the lack of controls and segregation of duties with respect to Phar-Mor’s

Having internal controls is one thing, but how the company evaluates that control is a matter all by itself. Being an independent auditor, it is our job to understand an entity and

Armed with the knowledge mentioned above, BDO Seidman should have planned the Leslie Fay audit so that many risk factors were identified prior to the start of the audit. The company had incentives to commit fraud due to other competitors, including highly successful Liz Clairborne. The customer interest in Leslie Fay’s product was declining, which would have created another incentive for management to commit fraud. Despite the factors mentioned above, Leslie Fay continued to show unusual profitability when compared to other companies in the industry at that time. Further, Pomerantz had a reputation for

This case established that an auditor could be sued by a primary beneficiary for damages from negligence. A primary beneficiary is a party that has a direct benefit from the audit. Non-privity parties could also sue for gross negligence. This increased the auditor’s legal exposure to third parties. The SEC of 1934 reflected these changes and many others; one significant change was that auditor’s had a much higher litigation risk due to their new responsibility to third parties.

The first is that raised cost through the additional time spent and additional set up costs as well. It affects in both auditors and managers of firms. For the manager, ‘New auditors, they argue lack sufficient knowledge regarding firm-specific risks and, as a consequence, audit failures would likely increase.’ (782, purple) Supposing firm does not need to change related audit company, auditors might know better about firm specific expertise as well as they might not be fully understand of financial statements. For the auditors, if compulsory audit firm radiation implemented under the government regulation, new audit firms should investigate new client to analyze their characteristics and management flows. Therefore it could be concluded that will be high costly because of additional costs such as human resources and time to catch up compared with keeping one audit firm

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident

Records falsification was not the only illegal activity the Rigas family was wrapped up in. The family used company funds, unbeknownst to their investors, to finance personal endevours and interests. Examples include using corporate money to build a $12.8 million golf course on the Rigas property, using the company plane for personal vacation trips including a safari to Africa, and funding for two Manhattan apartments for his family (Markon, 2014). Not only this, but John Rigas purportedly used the company jet to fly a Christmas tree two times to his daughter in New York (Barlaup, 2009)! All of these incidents are just brief excerpts of the fraud and misuse of company funds that John Rigas and his family committed without any intention of ever paying back into the company. These actions, namely lying and stealing, prove to be the heart of the two moral issues that will be further analyzed.

The company should hire it’s own internal auditor’s to ensure that the staff understand the company’s accounting procedures. This also helps the external auditor as it give the external auditor another viewpoint when assessing fraud risks. The internal auditors are apart of those charged with governance and that helps take the pressure off of the external auditor if a fraud should be discovered.

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

Internal auditors cannot effectively provide an analysis on the company’s internal dealings as they are part of the company. External auditors, however, can observe these processes from the outside and then determine where the funds of the company and whether the dealings adhere to the regulations. Using external auditors in a company prevents conflict of interest from happening. Conflict of interest is a situation where an individual or organization has multiple interests and of those multiple interests, one could possible corrupt the motivation for an act on the other when the auditor has any kind of beneficial interest in their client’s performance. In other circumstances, there is also the threat of familiarity where auditors become

There were many issues in this case but one of the main issues that stood out was the fact that Andersen there was a conflict of interest because Andersen was the auditor and consultant for Enron. There are positive attributes when auditing and consulting at the same time for a client such as building a relationship with the client and promotes business; allows the auditor to become familiar with the clients’ business environment, and reduces the overall cost of the client. However, when a firm audits and consults for their client, the audit/consulting firm works so closely to the client that it makes ethical decisions very difficult to make and the auditors lose objectivity and become partial due to the conflict of interest.

Since reliable financial information is essential for investors and other stakeholders to take adequate decisions, this reliability must be backed by independent review performed by independent and certified auditing firms, which are supposed to verify and certify financial statements issued by a company’s management. If the auditor is not competent and independent from management, the audit of the financial statements loses its credibility (Schelker, 2013, p.295). According to Impastato (2003), because of audit failures, accountants are to blame for investors losing billions of dollars in earnings in addition to market capitalization (as cited in Grubbs & Ethridge 2007).

The lack of independence for external auditors will lead to the neglect of auditing risks (William R.K., 2003), which are the main reasons for the failure of certified accountants and professional accounting organizations. The consequence of the external auditors deprived of independence would be very serious. And there are many cases, which aroused by the failure of external auditors and most are related to the lack of independence. One famous example is the bankruptcy of Enron and the role played by its external auditor, Arthur Andersen (Todd, S., 2003). Arthur Andersen was once one of the biggest accounting companies in the world, and was canceled for the involvement in the Enron bankruptcy scandal.

This paper critically analyses the independence of the internal audit function through its relationship with management and the audit committee. Given the growing role of internal auditing in contemporary corporate governance and independence has gained renewed attention.