Waste Management Case Study

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

During fraud period, Arthur Andersen did not provide any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion (Freddie Mac 2002). It also failed to place a condition or qualification on its statement as well; for example, “the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Freddie Mac … for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2001, in conformity with GAAP” (Freddie Mac 2001). Arthur Andersen’s reputation was damaged due to its handling of the auditing of Enron, and it filed for bankruptcy at last. On March 2002, PwC took over auditing duties from Arthur Andersen, and refused to certify the company's books (Barta et al. 2003). It identified that these accounting policies were incorrect, prompting the Board an investigation. Also, PwC notified company of material weaknesses that existed in its internal controls over financial reporting during 2003 (Freddie Mac). According to the audit reports for 2004, 2005, and 2006, the financial statements fairly represented the performance except for some weaknesses of internal control pointed out by

The auditing firm Coopers & Lybrand was accused of failing to perform a proper GAAS audit. One strategy the auditors could have performed was to follow the trail of revenue vs expenses. The auditor should have notice large sums ($10 million) of revenue going into one particular expense (Suppliers/Inventory). Considering Phar-Mor filed that they lost money in fiscal year 1984 and 1985 and they never cleared

) There was a lack of adequate cut-off procedures to ensure the timely recording of certain period-end accruals. This resulted in an audit adjustment of $3,578,000. The benchmark for overall materiality is $3,508,000, I would consider the audit adjustment of $3,578,000 a material misstatement. Control environment, principle 2 the board of directors and management exercise oversight of development and performance of internal controls. Due to the severity and material weakness of lack of adequate cutoff procedures to ensure timely recording of period end accruals. Management and the board of directors should evaluate performance of internal control activities including adherence to standards of conduct and expected levels of competence. In

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.

3) What was the prime motivation behind the decisions of Arthur Andersen’s audit partners of the Enron, WorldCom, Waste Management and Sunbeam UDITS: Cite examples that reveal this motivation?

The Phar Mor case is an example of a fraud that was collusive effort of multiple individuals within the upper management who continually worked to hide evidence from the auditors. With the signs of covering losses, creating fictitious inventory, misstating financial statements, and misappropriating the company’s dwindling assets; the fraud was significant but the oversight inept procedures by the auditors extended this fraud for nearly five-years Currently, accounting firms, with the leverage provided by Statement on Auditing Standard No. 99 are shifting from the cost-pressured audit situation of the past to more quality audits and fulfilling the responsibility to plan and perform.

1. What audit procedures that, if employed by Ernst & Whinney during the 1981 USSC audit, might have detected the overstatement of the leased and loaned assets account that resulted from the improper accounting for asset retirements?

There are several audit procedures that, if employed by Ernst & Whinney during the 1981 USSC audit, might have detected the overstatement of the leased and loaned assets account that resulted from the improper accounting for assets retirements. First of all, Ernst & Whinney overlooked an important risk factor of the company’s strong incentive to reach targeted sales and profit goals. In addition, they failed to properly apply analytical

The chief executive of the company was closely working with the vendors whose confirmations were vital in the auditing work and hence they could have submitted false confirmations. The auditing firm established a national risk management program for its clients and so national reviews were done to identify the high risk items in the financial statement. The vendor allowances were particularly high but they were not documented. As such, the auditors were supposed to demand for the documentations and compare them with the real figures. It is however noted that most of the documentations received were non-standard and this could have led to a different audit report given that vendor allowances were earlier identified as a high risk area. Inventory management was found to be poor especially in the allowances for inventory reserves. The audit firm was therefore obliged to carry out a thorough evaluation of the inventory reserves and determine whether it was reasonable. The valuation was also supposed to include all classes of inventory but for the case of the company, the evaluation excluded instances where no sales had been made. Hence, this evaluation could not accurately represent the position of the inventory reserve in the company. (Waters,2003)

This essay explores the corporate collapse of Harris-Scarfe on April 3 2001, which before their collapse was Australia’s third largest retail group (Buchanan 2004, p. 55). It will explore the collapse in the context of the auditing framework. In particular, how the financial indiscretions were not discovered by the auditors, which were going on as early as six years prior to the collapse (Buchanan 2004, p. 62). To start with, we define what the auditing objective is in order to work out where it failed in this case. ASA 200.11/ISA 200.11 defines the auditing objective as one that needs to ascertain reasonable assurance that the financial report as a whole is free from misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. In doing so the auditor can give an opinion of whether the financial report was prepared in accordance with the financial reporting framework (Gay & Simnett 2012, p. 12).

Arthur Andersen auditors continued signing off with unqualified opinions. Of course, in a long run misstatement or misrepresentation of true financial situation of waste hauler would lead to a company’s inability to pay its debts and go bankrupt. In this case, and, unfortunately, many more others, Arthur Andersen pursued short-term goals of making good profits since Waste Management was one of

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

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.

In our current society there’s a lot of talk about waste management. Buzzwords like “sustainability,” “eco-friendly,” and “biodegradable” find their way into our lives. Into our homes. But is it just aimed at the individual, or does it go beyond the doors of our homes? We all know that industry is everywhere. It in some way encompasses every aspect of our daily routine. From the packaging your toothpaste comes in, to the parts that make up the vehicle you drive, it all originated at a commercial or industrial facility. The UXL Encyclopedia of Water Science states “Commercial operations are those that provide a service or sell a product.” (Hoyle, 419) What we may not realize is just how much waste these multi-faceted