The Case Of Enron And Arthur Andersen & Co

1829 Words8 Pages
Studies say that most people 's greatest fears are financial matters. What if you cannot afford to pay your debts? That is where bankruptcy comes in. Not one person desires to do it, but you can go before a judge and have your past debts forgiven. Nowadays, certain people file for bankruptcy, businesses, individuals, and it no longer has the disgrace it once had. Now it is almost considered a sensible way to recuperate and come back again. According to Business Dictionary bankruptcy is a "legal procedure for liquidating a business or personal property owned by an individual that cannot entirely pay its debts out of its current assets" (What Is Bankruptcy? Definition and Meaning). Two main objectives of bankruptcy are settling fair of all…show more content…
The dismissed associate, David B. Duncan, announced a conference of accountants at the firm 's Houston facility and directed an expedited attempt to stop records on Oct. 23, the day after Enron exposed that the Securities Exchange Commission had begun its analysis. The damage apparently did not end until Mr. Duncan 's secretary posted an e-mail message to other administrators on Nov. 9 that said '"stop the shredding." Andersen had received a subpoena from the Security Exchange Commission the day before. Ever since the bankruptcy, many concluded before facts were available to form a reasonable judgment that Andersen was responsible for their actions resulting Enron going bankrupt. "Facts show that Enron officers committed fraud within off-balance sheet partnerships with the active assistance of many prominent financial institutions" (Morrison, Mary Ashby). Evidence indicates that Andersen personnel destroyed duplicate copies of old memos, magazines, and requests for charitable contributions before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued or discussed any subpoena to the firm. In difference, the Department of Justice gave misleading testimony, engaged in escapes, allegedly threatening observers and acknowledged in court that it had failed to review the most crucial evidence, the firms audit papers. Auditors are
Open Document