The District Court found that company management regarded Wilson as disabled when in fact he was not and terminated him as a result of his perceived disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court rejected the company's contention that Wilson was laid off during a reduction in force necessitated by business conditions. During the trial, Wilson's attorneys pointed to an e-mail Phoenix's president Robert Hurst sent to an associate stating Wilson "qualifies for ADA designation and we will have to consider accommodations." But when Wilson requested a larger computer screen and help with typing, his requests were denied. While the court did not rule on the issue of whether the company violated Wilson's ADA rights by failing to provide accommodations, this case shows what employers should not do when trying to determine if an employee is disabled.
Impoundment of funds: From time to time presidents have refused to spend money appropriated by Congress. In response to President Nixon’s impoundments in 1972, the Budget Reform Act of 1974 was passed. The act requires presidents to notify Congress of funds they do not intend to spend. Congress must agree within 45 days to delete the item. If Congress doesn’t agree with the impoundment of funds, the president is required to spend the money.
Under the direction of Monus, the company had many accounting issues that could be easily caught by any auditor. The issues stemmed from embezzlement by Monus for both personal and professional pursuits and fictitious inventory on the books that covered the company’s losses. By 1992, three of the company’s four financial executives had previously worked for Phar-Mor’s auditor, Coopers & Lybrand. Therefore, Monus and other executives used their knowledge of the audit process to cover up their fraud (Williams, 2011). First, the company created “bucket accounts” where cover-up activities were recorded and then moved and divided between inventory of existing stores.
The purpose of the SOX Act in response to the fraudulent and misleading activities of large corporations such as Enron, Health South, Xerox, Global Crossing, and almost one thousand publicly traded companies. Fraud is defined as “a dishonest act by an employee that results in personal benefit to the employee at a cost to the employer” (Kimmel, Weygandt, & Kieso, 2011). The afore mentioned companies and many others committed fraud when they willingly published false and/or deceptive financial statements making their companies look like they were making huge profits, therefore causing their stock prices to soar and enticing the public to by more and more shares of their companies. Unfortunately, when the truth came out, the fraudulent actions of a few resulted in the loss of almost $5 trillion of stock market value and an undetermined amount for stockholders. Because of this fraudulent action, Congress had no choice but to intervene and pass legislation that would curtail this illegal
He focused more on the amount of revenue the company made than on the business ethics. Arthur Andersen auditors failed to audit Enron’s financial statements according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and failed to advice the audit committee of conflicts of interest with internal controls. They approved Special Purpose Entities which were used to generate false profits, hide losses, and kept financing off Enron’s consolidated financial statements, and they did not consider the advice of their quality control partner. 3. What was the primary motivation behind the decisions of Arthur Andersen’s audit partners on the Enron audit: the public interest or something else?
The product of 3400 should be included in the inventory because it belonged to Webber on Dec 31st 2012 4. Merchandise costing $720 was received on December 28, 2012, and the invoice was not recorded. You located it in the hands of the purchasing agent; it was marked “on consignment.” The merchandise of $720 does not need to be included in the inventory because it was
This report must be filed for each of the first three fiscal quarters of the company's fiscal year. 6. Who is Nike’s auditor? PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, who audited (1) the consolidated financial statements and (2) the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting as of May 31, 2010. 7. Did Nike get a “clean opinion?” Apparently they did.
The standard-setting board was known as the IASC Board. The IASC Board disseminated a substantial body of Standards, Interpretations, a Conceptual Framework, and other guidance that are adopted directly by many companies and that are inquire about by many national accounting standard-setters in developing national accounting standards. The International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (until March 2010 known as the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation) is the independent, non-profit foundation, created in 2000 to oversee the IASB. Since 2001, the standards-setting work of the IFRS Foundation is conducted by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). An IFRS Interpretations Committee (IFRIC) develops and solicits comment on interpretive guidance for applying Standards promulgated by the IASB, but the IASB must approve the Interpretations developed by IFRIC.
b) In complete sentences, briefly summarize management’s current outlook for the company. 4. Look at the Independent Auditor’s Report within the Audited/Consolidated Financial Statements section. a) Confirm that the name of the accounting firm listed in the Company Profile is the same firm name found at the bottom of the auditor’s report. b) In complete sentences, briefly describe the auditor’s opinion as to the fairness of the company’s financial statements.
The new auditing standards include the requirement that the Auditing Board is required to cooperate with designated professional groups along with any advisory groups that are convened in connection with standard-setting for auditors. The AICPA Board requires that all registered public accounting firms "prepare, and maintain for a period of not less than 7 years, audit work papers, and other information related to any audit report, in sufficient detail to support the conclusions reached in such report" (SOX, Sect. 103 2002). The AICPA Board now requires a second concurring partner review (same results) along with approval of the audit reports of registered accounting firms that have adopted the SOX required quality control standards. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires auditors to review the internal controls of any audited company.