Repo 105 Auditing

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

Overall, there were three “red flags” E&Y was not aware of during the audit. First, they neglected the 500% net income increase from 1999-2001. This should have raised awareness because revenues only increased by 5% during that same period. Second, the internal auditors were denied access to some of the corporate ledgers. E&Y should have seen this as being one of the largest red flags. Third, the audit team failed to properly investigate employee complaints.

A decade ago the Lehman Brothers were the fourth largest investment bank in America. Dealing with Investment banking and investment management, the Lehman Brothers was one of the largest global financial service providers. Consequently, the subprime mortgage crisis left the company filing for the declaration of the chapter 11 bankruptcy protections, due to the unnecessary undertaken risk and obnoxious negligence accusations directed towards the group. Companies should utilize observational and analytical pundit functions in identifying the presence of crisis situations to avoid an economic downturn in the business (Pontell, 2014). The fraud would have prevented through stronger and better internal controls, which

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.

Of these transactions, most of it was not in the interest of Enron of Enron’s shareholders; such as profits and cash flows were manipulated and grossly inflated which caused misleading to the investors. AA has also failed to recognise the Generally Accepted Accounting Principle (GAAP) – which is accounting rules used to prepare, present and report financial statements for a wide variety of entities used in United States. AA also did not advise Enron’s audit committee that Enron’s CFO – Andrew Fastow – and his helpers were involved in significant conflict of interests. Enron’s politics and internal control was also found out to be inadequate to protect the shareholders interests. These should have made known and clear as these are responsibilities of an auditor. AA has also make the mistake by which it did not act upon evidence found or neither has it find any audit evidence relating to the numerous share rights transferred to SPEs and the side deals between Enron and banks which remove the banks’ risk from transactions. In auditing, audit documentations are key part to the audit processes.

During the times leading up to the power struggle, the power dynamic within Lehman was steadily shifting as trading profits became increasingly more important to Lehman versus traditional investment banking profits. Thus, Glucksman was able to step into the spot light and Peterson became more expendable. Peter Peterson’s core

Ernst & Whinney audit firm suffered tremendously from the backlash of ZZZZ Best’s case. One of the issues stemming from ZZZZ Best’s case is the difference between a review and an audit as evidence by civil suit filed by a California bank against the firm. The bank claimed that its decision to grant ZZZZ Best’s loan was based on the opinion of Ernst & Whinney review of ZZZZ Best’s financial statements period ending July 31, 1986. The case was ruled in favor of Ernst & Whinney as the audit firm had expressly stated in their report that it was not issuing an opinion and the bank should not have rely heavily on the review report. Also, ZZZZ Best was a public company at the time, a review of its

E&Y auditors violated their responsibility to the public and to their profession. The auditing standards that were violated were AU 15 responsibility of the auditor to obtain sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable basis for his opinion, AU section 339 preparation and maintenance of working papers, AU 339.01 Principle record of work contains information and conclusions the auditors have reached concerning significant matters in the working papers, AU 339.08 the auditor is required to “adopt reasonable procedures for safe custody of his working papers and retain them for a period, AU 15 was violated when Trauger requested revisions to the workpapers. AU 339, AU 339.01 and AU 339.08 were violated with the

The purpose of this memo is to provide an assessment into the Bankruptcy Examiner’s report regarding the risk management failure as it relates to Leman Brothers. The fundamental reason for the failure is based on the change in corporate strategy of 2006 in which Lehman decided to shift from a “moving” or securitization business to a “storage’ business, with the firm making and holding longer-term, risk investments. This “strategic positioning” was fully supported by the board, although the chief risk officer and certain senior risk management executives had expressed concerns about the extent of the change to the firm’s “risk appetite.”

Cable provider Adelphia was one of the major accounting scandals of the early 2000s that led to the creation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. A key provision of the Act was to create a stronger ethical climate in the auditing profession, a consequence of the apparent role that auditors played in some of the scandals. SOX mandated that auditors cannot audit the same companies for which they provide consulting services, as this link was perceived to result in audit teams being pressured to perform lax audits in order to secure more consulting business from the clients. There were other provisions in SOX that increased the regulatory burden on the auditing profession in response to lax auditing practices in scandals like Adelphia (McConnell & Banks, 2003). This paper will address the Adelphia scandal as it relates to the auditors, and the deontological ethics of the situation.

Furthermore, in the case of Lehman Brothers, it showed a company that did not put his people/ employees into consideration or as assets of it company. This showed when Lehman decided to lower the medical insurance costs just to get an expense off the balance sheet, and rejected the suggestion of a loyal consultant than has been worked sincerely 9 years with Lehman just to cover the company’s ass with some unethical decision. Moreover, the third party, Ernst & Young aware of the use of Repo 105 by Lehman but did not voice out or report to the related association. Being a top professional auditor firm, E&Y did not perform it professionalism to show responsibility to it firm and try to help the unethical party to hide it true situation of it company. In this scenario, it showed the unethical issue that always happens in the business industry, Corruption.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the role of external auditing in promoting good corporate governance. The role of auditors has been emphasized after the pass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a response to the accounting scandal of Enron. Even though auditors are hired and paid by the company, their role is not to represent or act in favor of the company, but to watch and investigate the company’s financials to protect the public from any material misstatements that can affect their decisions. As part of this role, the auditors assess the level of the company’s adherence to its own code of ethics.

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.