d. The sale of the consulting practice by Arthur Anderson did not allow the company to avoid conflicts of interest because they still were working both internal and external audits, so the external audits were checking the work of the internal audits. e. As a shareholder of a company, you would not be happy with a “nice guy” auditor. Instead, you’d want someone who would tell it like it is and not be afraid to shake things up and let his views be known. The “interested party” who would be happy with the description of David Duncan would be Enron, which was looking for a pushover. f. While most auditing firms are LLC or LLP, Arthur Anderson and David Duncan can be held liable to some degree for the obstruction of justice they
An auditor only looks at financial statements during a review without digging deeper to find any material misstatements or potential fraud, there is no review of the company’s internal controls, also the auditor does not look at any files that backup the financial statements they are given. In this case, the owner of the company hindered the auditor’s from doing their due diligence because he did not want his fraud discovered. 2. According to AU 326 of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, information from outside sources should be reliable. There should have been many substantive tests performed, objectives set forth, due diligence for true existence or occurrence of any files or contracts.
Other cases discussed in class have shown the fraud being perpetrated to have intent behind it. In the DeBurger case, there is no evidence of fraud being committed with the intent of deceit. This case, however, does remind one of the Tommy O’Connell case, in where both individuals (O’Connell & DeBurger) found discrepancies throughout their audits, but waited too long to bring attention to the necessary individual(s) and even more neither had substantial evidence to back up their accusations. 2. During the audit of Marcell, the inventory was the focal point of concern for the audit staff, and the crumbling financial standing of the company made the inventory more of a concern.
Goodyear’s argument against the case was the since the statutory period was only 180 days, Ms. Ledbetter could not file a lawsuit about past pay checks, but only those falling under those 180 days. Goodyear simply claimed that Ms. Ledbetter’s claim was time bared. This case is relevant to Human Resource Management because it shows the outcome of what sex discrimination can do if it is not monitored in the work place. It shows the outcome of what a faulty lawsuit looks like, but also gives the perception of what a person might have to do in order to get their full, which in the long run would be most damaging to the company both monetary and publically. I disagree with the outcome of the case; a case of this nature should not be dismissed simply because of the 180 days statutory period.
Of course Stalin just said he’d made a mistake and because Trotsky didn’t see him as a threat he just moved on. But because he was there Stalin could make himself out to be Lenin’s disciple and that he alone could carry on spreading Lenin’s message and bring about global Communism. Of course this also impacted Trotsky’s chance at leadership as this made him out as not being close to Lenin. And so because of Trotsky’s foolhardy assumption that Stalin was no threat Stalin was able to make valuable inroads into Trotsky support. The second time he was underestimated was in May of the same year.
2) Had you been advising Mr. Cathy, what would you have counseled him? If I had the job of advising Mr. Cathy after making the comment he did I would’ve done everything I could to make him realize the impact his statement truly had. After he was aware of what it is he was doing to his and the company’s reputation I would’ve continued to discuss how he planned on handling the situation. I believe that things got out of control on both ends of the spectrum with the Appreciation Day and the Kiss-In. I believe it is important for people to stay true to who they are, their beliefs, and their values, but it is also just as important to be considerate, professional,
Even when Cynthia was told to drop the investigation, she remained ethical and honest until the truth came out for the public to see. Key Individuals in the WorldCom Case Betty Vinson and Troy Normand Two of the key individuals from WorldCom’s accounting department were Betty Vinson, the accounting director, and Troy Normand, the mid-level accounting director. Both Vinson and Normand made unethical decisions that led to the events of the WorldCom case. Betty Vinson was a key individual who entered some of the falsified amounts into the prepaid capacity accounts. However, when asked by Cynthia Cooper for support or reasoning on why the recorded amounts occurred, Vinson had no answer.
I think that the error in decision making came because the CEO didn't know the terrible status of the company. I think that he thought he was alright to do what he did financially, even though spending that kind of money just to upgrade your office is absolutely ridiculous. The only thing that could've prevented that situation is for the CEO to have some common sense about how to spend your money or even know the company's standing. 3. I think that both CEO's should've let their employees know the status of what was going on, because it seemed that they had no idea of the things that were occurring.
All of the things showed she acted in the very ethical manner. Coopers action protected both internal and external stockholders within WorldCom. Many stockholders had a plethora of invested in WorldCom, if they continue to report inaccurate earnings in the long run the stockholders could have lost much more. Cooper manages to take it upon herself to secretly invest WorldCom on her own time going above and beyond for call of duty. As future accountants our job is not to turn a blind eye to actions like this but Cooper gives us the courage to stand up two large companies.
He didn’t think he needed to ask Express the moral problem so that everyone will believe that his or her moral concerns have been recognized and included. * This is a moral problem because his actions of using company funds for personal use wasn’t economically efficient productive system, it didn’t produce more of the products that people most want an less use of the resources people least value, which is a definite value to society. In addition to this, his actions wasn’t informed to everyone. * Effective use of resources, What are the economic benefits? * What are the legal requirements?