Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Where did the waste management scandal take place
Essay on the influence of sarbanes oxley
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOL) has important implications for the financial community
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Where did the waste management scandal take place
1. What was the fraud?
Founder/ CEO/ Chairman of Waste Management, Dean L. Buntrock with the help of some executives reported $1.7 billion in fake earnings. However, this could not have been accomplished without the assistance of their auditing firm, Arthur Andersen.
2. How was the fraud carried out?
The company allegedly falsely increased the depreciation time length for their assets on the balance sheet. Waste Management was aided in the fraud by the company’s long-time auditor, Arthur Andersen. For five-year their auditors issued unqualified audit reports on the company’s annual statements. From the beginning of it all, the company allowed Arthur Andersen to earn additional fees by performing “special work”. When they discovered the irregularities with their accounting practices it was proposed to management that they correct them. Naturally, Waste Management refused the adjustments and instead entered into arrangements to write off the collected errors over a period of 10 years. This signed agreement was known as the Summary of Action Steps, which laid out the wrongful actions of the two parties and a plan to cover future frauds.
…show more content…
Nevertheless, management did not comply with the auditor’s requests. Therefore, new management had called for a review of previous financial statements, which led to the discovery of fraud. 3. What weaknesses or circumstances enabled the fraud to be perpetrated? The weakness or circumstance that enabled the fraud was culture. Founder, CEO, and Chairman Buntrock personal attachment to the company got the best of him. The fellow board members should have used their authority to sway the decision of the CEO. Further, his attachment to the company embodied him to act on enriching the legacy of Waste Management. 4. How was the fraud discovered? The fraud was discovered in 1997 when the new CEO ordered a review of the company’s financial statements. The examination led to the restatement of the company’s financial statements for 1992 through third quarter 1997. This led to misstating pre-tax earnings by $1.7 billion. As a result Waste Management shareholders lost more than $6 billion in the market value when stock prices dropped. This led to a class-action settlement of $457 million, and a fine of $7 million for Arthur Andersen. 5. How could the fraud have been prevented? The fraud could have been prevented by the auditors, Arthur Andersen.
The so called “first line of defense” sole purpose is to reinforce the accuracy and assertion of the financial statements. Based on the signed agreement “Summary of Actions”, which detailed a proposed agreement to conceal the fraud, Arthur Andersen was openly aware. They went so far to document it and made arrangements to hide it in the upcoming years. With the addition of the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act I believe these actions could have been prevented. Further, the Act would have held auditors accountable for the accuracy of their reports, which states that an auditor’s “report does not contain any material untrue statements or material omission or be considered misleading” (section 302). Also, by imposing guidelines on fines for fraudulent behavior (Section
802). References: Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC) (2002). Waste Management Founder, Five Other Former Top Officers Sued for Massive Fraud. Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/news/headlines/wastemgmt6.htm 107th United States Congress. (July 30, 2002) Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Retreived from https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/soa2002.pdf
Take into consideration the auditors from Arthur Andersen. They did not take into consideration the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The auditors from Arthur Andersen took into consideration the consequences only for their own firm and their own well-being. Vinson & Elkins lawyers should not have destroyed evidence in order to protect their client Enron. Lawyers do take an oath to help protect and defend their client but they are not to help find ways for their client to violate the
The CFO, Andrew Fastow, systematically falsified there earnings by moving company losses off book and only reporting earnings, which led to Enron’s bankruptcy. Any safeguards or mechanisms that were in place to catch unethical behavior were thrown out the window when the corporate culture became a situation where every person was looking out for their own best interests. There were a select few employees that tried to get in front of the unethical accounting practices, but they were pushed aside and silenced. The corporate culture at Enron became a place where if an employee would not make unethical decisions then they would be terminated and the next person that would make those unethical decisions would replace them. Enron executives had no conscience or they would have cared for the people they ended up hurting. At one time, Enron probably was a growing company that had potential to make a difference, but because their lack of social responsibility and their excessive greed the company became known for the negative affects it had on society rather than the potential positive ones it could have had. Enron’s coercive power created fear amongst the employees, which created a corporate culture that drove everyone to make unethical decisions and eventually led to the downfall and bankruptcy of
Throughout the past several years major corporate scandals have rocked the economy and hurt investor confidence. The largest bankruptcies in history have resulted from greedy executives that “cook the books” to gain the numbers they want. These scandals typically involve complex methods for misusing or misdirecting funds, overstating revenues, understating expenses, overstating the value of assets or underreporting of liabilities, sometimes with the cooperation of officials in other corporations (Medura 1-3). In response to the increasing number of scandals the US government amended the Sarbanes Oxley act of 2002 to mitigate these problems. Sarbanes Oxley has extensive regulations that hold the CEO and top executives responsible for the numbers they report but problems still occur. To ensure proper accounting standards have been used Sarbanes Oxley also requires that public companies be audited by accounting firms (Livingstone). The problem is that the accounting firms are also public companies that also have to look after their bottom line while still remaining objective with the corporations they audit. When an accounting firm is hired the company that hired them has the power in the relationship. When the company has the power they can bully the firm into doing what they tell them to do. The accounting firm then loses its objectivity and independence making their job ineffective and not accomplishing their goal of honest accounting (Gerard). Their have been 379 convictions of fraud to date, and 3 to 6 new cases opening per month. The problem has clearly not been solved (Ulinski).
The law requires auditors to report any fraudulent activities discovered during the course of an audit to the SEC. This is when Article I of Section 51 of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct comes into play. The auditor may uncover illegal acts or fraud while auditing the financial statements of a company. In such instances, the auditor must determine his or her responsibilities in making the right judgment and report their discovery or suspicions of the said fraudulent activities. Tyco International is an example of the auditors’ failure to uphold their responsibilities. Tyco’s former CEO Dennis Kozlowski and ex-CFO Mark Swartz sold stocks without investors’ approval and misrepresented the company’s financial position to investors to increase its stock prices (Crawford, 2005). The auditors (PricewaterhouseCoopers) helped cover the executives’ acts by not revealing their findings to the authorities as it is believed they must have known about the fraud taking place. Another example would be the Olympus scandal. The Japanese company, which manufactures cameras and medical equipment, used venture capital funds to cover up their losses (Aubin & Uranaka, 2011). Allegedly, thei...
Dennis Kozlowski was an accounting major from modest beginnings who worked his way to the top of Tyco, but along the way he made an important career stop at Nashua Corporation, as the Director of Audit and Analysis. In keeping with his tactic to handpick his management team, along came his new CFO Mark Swartz. He was an impeccable choice for Kozlowski, fitting the requirements of being “smart, poor, and wants-to-be-rich” (Symonds) and since he began his career as a CPA auditor for Deloitte & Touche he had the perfect skill set to assist in Kozlowski’s corruption (Hamilton and Micklethwait 82). Before they could begin to pillage the company they needed to establish a way to avoid detection by the SEC, the board of directors and the auditors. In much the same way a bank robber would disable security cameras, they made their thieveries invisible or paid off those that would help them. First, Kozlowski organized the company so that the internal audit team reported directly to him ins...
The overall view clarification of the issue illustrates the evolution of Enron’s innovations and fraud. The business records of the company financial economists and accountant’s uncovered considerable number information and incentive issues. The issues both complicate and potentially resolve the appraised valuation questions such as; earnings growth, stock splits, dividend changes, free cash flow limitations, share price-based compensation and hedging of market risks. The Enron Company contributed large sums of money to non-profit organizations for the purpose of acting on probable ethical issues before they become legal dilemmas. The company failed to inform its consumers of the business decisions made even though they had knowledge that the person at the other end of the business deal did not. The Enron Company filed a Chapter 11 to seek bankruptcy protection. The uncertainty of the company’s standings impacted the market’s confidence in...
Rather than being sticklers for following GAAP accounting principles and internal controls, this company took unethical behavior to a whole new level. They lied when the truth would have been easier to tell. It is almost as if they had no comprehension that the meaning of the word ethics is “the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group (professional ethics); the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation”, (Mirriam-Webster, 2011). To be ethical all one has to do is follow laws, rules, regulations and your own internal moral compass, all things this company seemed to know nothing about.
On the surface, the motives behind decisions and events leading to Enron’s downfall appear simple enough: individual and collective greed born in an atmosphere of market euphoria and corporate arrogance. Hardly anyone—the company, its employees, analysts or individual investors—wanted to believe the company was too good to be true. So, for a while, hardly anyone did. Many kept on buying the stock, the corporate mantra and the dream. In the meantime, the company made many high-risk deals, some of which were outside the company’s typical asset risk control process. Many went sour in the early months of 2001 as Enron’s stock price and debt rating imploded because of loss of investor and creditor trust. Methods the company used to disclose its complicated financial dealings were all wrong and downright deceptive. The company’s lack of accuracy in reporting its financial affairs, followed by financial restatements disclosing billions of dollars of omitted liabilities and losses, contributed to its downfall. The whole affair happened under the watchful eye of Arthur Andersen LLP, which kept a whole floor of auditors assigned at Enron year-round.
In modern day business, there can be so many pressures that can cause managers to commit fraud, even though it often starts as just a little bit at first, but will spiral out of control with time. In the case of WorldCom, there were several pressures that led executives and managers to “cook the books.” Much of WorldCom’s initial growth and success was due to acquisitions. Over time, WorldCom discovered that there were no more opportunities for growth through acquisitions when the U.S. Department of Justice disallowed the acquisition of Sprint.
Unethical accounting practices involving Enron date back to 1987. Enron’s use of creative accounting involved moving profits from one period to another to manipulate earnings. Anderson, Enron’s auditor, investigated and reported these unusual transactions to Enron’s audit committee, but failed to discuss the illegality of the acts (Girioux, 2008). Enron decided the act was immaterial and Anderson went along with their decision. At this point, the auditor’s should have reevaluated their risk assessment of Enron’s internal controls in light of how this matter was handled and the risks Enron was willing to take The history of unethical accounting practic...
“Enron incorporated “mark-to-market accounting” for the energy trading business in the mid-1990s and used it on a huge scale for its trading transactions. These rules, when companies have outstanding energy-related or other derivative contracts (either assets or liabilities) on their balance sheets at the end of a particular financial quarter must be adjusted to fair market value, declaring unrealized gains or losses to the Balance Sheet of the period” (C. William Thomas, 2002). Andrew Fastow, the CFO, The CEO Jeff skilling and its former ...
Corporate governance changed drastically after the case of Andersen Auditors, Enron’s auditing service showed that they contributed to the scandal. Andersen was originally founded in 1913, and by taking tough stands against clients, quickly gained a national reputation as a reliable keeper of the people’s trust (Beasley, 2003). Andersen provided auditing statements with a ‘clean’ approval stamp from 1997 to 2001, but was found guilty of obstructing justice by shredding evidence relating to the Enron scandal on the 15th June 2002. It agrees to cease auditing public companies by 31 August (BBC News, 2002).
Enron was on the of the most successful and innovative companies throughout the 1990s. In October of 2001, Enron admitted that its income had been vastly overstated; and its equity value was actually a couple of billion dollars less than was stated on its income statement (The Fall of Enron, 2016). Enron was forced to declare bankruptcy on December 2, 2001. The primary reasons behind the scandal at Enron was the negligence of Enron’s auditing group Arthur Andersen who helped the company to continually perpetrate the fraud (The Fall of Enron, 2016). The Enron collapse had a huge effect on present accounting regulations and rules.
Prior to 2000, Enron was an American energy, commodities and service international company. Enron claimed that revenue is more than 102 millions (Healy & Palepu 2003, p.6). Fortune named Enron “American most innovative company” for six consecutive years (Ehrenberg 2011, paragraph 3). That is the reason why Enron became an admired company before 2000. Unfortunately, most of the net income for the years 1997-2000 is overstated because of unethical accounting errors (Benston & Hartgraves 2002, p. 105). In the next paragraph, three main accounting issues will identify for what led to the fall of Enron.
CEO Kenneth Lay’s ambition for ENRON a company he had helped form went beyond the business of piping gas. Enron went to become the largest natural gas merchant in North America and the United Kingdom. But the reality is, this company business model never worked. This was a company that was so desperate to win Wall Street 's respect that it kept it stocks shares prices going up despite the losses it was incurring in order for executives to keep lining their own pockets. Over the course of this Case Assignment, I will identify the examples of financial reporting misconduct, I will explain the deontological as well as a utilitarian ethical perspective and lastly I will identify the stakeholders likely to be affected by that misconduct.