Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arthur Andersen indicted for obstruction of justice in Enron scandal (BREAKING AT DRUDGE)
DRUDGEREPORT ^ | 3/14/2002

Posted on 03/14/2002 12:12:00 PM PST by TLBSHOW

Arthur Andersen indicted for obstruction of justice in Enron scandal

NOTHING FOLLOWS YET


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: arthurandersen; enron; enronlist; globalcrossing; warlist; weaselslist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-73 last
To: Southack
And of course, whether any of this impacts Andersen Consulting (aka Acenture) financially...

Two completely different companies. Accenture (nee Andersen Consulting) has been independent of AA since the late 80's...

51 posted on 03/14/2002 1:56:17 PM PST by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: My Favorite Headache
This is not Disney World...

No, but for a couple of sleezebags, it's going to feel like Gay Day for about 10-20. *grin*

52 posted on 03/14/2002 1:58:55 PM PST by Caipirabob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Yakboy
LOL...well maybe it will be like Disney then afterall.
53 posted on 03/14/2002 2:04:14 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Accenture Response to Media Inquiry

NEW YORK, Jan. 22, 2002 – In response to inquiries resulting from recent media coverage regarding the Andersen/Enron matter, Accenture (NYSE: ACN) today made the following statement:

Some of the news coverage of the current situation facing Arthur Andersen and Enron contains misconceptions and inaccuracies about the historical relationship between Accenture and Arthur Andersen.

Accenture is not and never has been engaged in the practice of public accounting. Accenture had no involvement in Arthur Andersen's audit services, including audit services to Enron.

Accenture LLP and Arthur Andersen LLP have been separate legal entities and have operated independently since 1989.

In 1990, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission formally recognized Accenture LLP as an entity separate and distinct from Arthur Andersen LLP.

In August 2000, based on an arbitrator's decision in the International Chamber of Commerce proceedings commenced by Accenture in 1997, all remaining historical contractual ties between Arthur Andersen and Accenture were completely severed.

54 posted on 03/14/2002 2:04:35 PM PST by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Melinator
I know, how about we nuke every city where Andersen maintains an office, just to be sure.

No, that would ruin the tax base. Just draft the AA (soon to be ex) employees and send them to Afghanistan...with a bright red target painted on their backs...

55 posted on 03/14/2002 2:15:20 PM PST by neutrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Melinator
"Should the DOJ take steps to knowingly destroy this business and the livelihoods of 85,000 people just to provide running cover for the Clinton Administration's complicity in Enron?"

Moot question. AA executive officers brought the walls down themselves. If there's a market out there for 85,000 acccounting professionals and support personnel, the displaced will find employment forthwith.

56 posted on 03/14/2002 2:22:11 PM PST by Harrison Bergeron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: KC Burke
They HAVE to file now for Chapter 11!!!! Deloitte will NOT touch them with even a 100' POLE!!!! they are simply TOO HOT now...
57 posted on 03/14/2002 2:36:50 PM PST by Roger_W_Isom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
If it last past MID APRIL I'm going to be SHOCKED now.... TOO MANY BAD signs are circling the carcass
58 posted on 03/14/2002 2:42:05 PM PST by Roger_W_Isom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: japaneseghost
If you DON'T you get SCREWWED BIG TIME!!!!!!
59 posted on 03/14/2002 2:49:06 PM PST by Roger_W_Isom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rednek
now someone explain how to put a partnership in jail after "it" is convicted!.

More than that, isn't AA a "limited liability partnership"?

My guess is that AA will "dissolve", the partners will walk away with millions, the 85,000 employees will look for other jobs and the next of the "Big Four" will be looked at.

BTW, my son is everlastingly happy that he left AA five years ago.

60 posted on 03/14/2002 2:59:30 PM PST by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
What this does is shove the Pickering Witch Trial off the news.
61 posted on 03/14/2002 4:04:45 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
The accounting will still have to be done by some company. Therefore people who once worked to AA will be starting up their own smaller companies and doing the same work. Let's just hope the dishonest ones get left behind.
62 posted on 03/14/2002 4:47:57 PM PST by hoosiermama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
"In August 2000, based on an arbitrator's decision in the International Chamber of Commerce proceedings commenced by Accenture in 1997, all remaining historical contractual ties between Arthur Andersen and Accenture were completely severed."

Perhaps just in time.

Perhaps not...

63 posted on 03/14/2002 5:41:55 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
Well, I am sure many of us have had to deal with this firm. My thoughts on them have always gone to the old saying that these folks charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to ask us for a watch so they can tell us what time it is. Nothing different with the Enron client. They were just there to take the money and go with the Enron flow. AS USUAL!
64 posted on 03/14/2002 5:49:13 PM PST by Woodstock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
Since the late '90's.
65 posted on 03/14/2002 6:22:15 PM PST by cactmh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
AA's going belly-up like dead fish in a bowl.
66 posted on 03/14/2002 6:39:16 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Melinator
Arthur Andersen is an LLP with 85,000 employees in 90 countries.

I don't know for sure, but I think their world wide business smokes their US business. In fact, either Andersen or another "big 5" firm is the largest law firm in the world. Not in the US, mind you, since the ABA won't let law firms share profits with non lawyers. While I disagree with that position, the Enron mess sure doesn't help my argument much.

67 posted on 03/14/2002 7:16:06 PM PST by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Melinator
Should the DOJ take steps to knowingly destroy this business and the livelihoods of 85,000 people just to provide running cover for the Clinton Administration's complicity in Enron?

I hate the Clintons as much as anyone--and more than most. However: 1) You have to go a piece yet to prove complicity in ANYTHING regarding the Clintons and Enron. Yes, there's smoke--but not yet a fire. 2) These 85,000 will be employed in 3 weeks, with Deloitte & Touche, McGladrey, Pullen, and others. Only about 6 dozen partners will be left, with a hell of a lot of furniture in empty offices.

Wonder which bank has the unsecured line of credit out there for (maybe) $1Bill???

68 posted on 03/14/2002 7:42:36 PM PST by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Accounting firms should be forced to run live web cameras on every paper shredder that they own, filming the faces of every person who tries to shred documents (along with a date and time stamp).

Nice idea but impractical in real life. Accounting firms shred massive amounts of paper every day. For example, at the small CPA firm where I used to work, each employee had a shred box that was periodically emptied by the office runner and shredded. If while making a spreadsheet workpaper I noticed a mistake after printing, I'd print out a corrected version and put the incorrect one in the shred box. If a photocopy came out wrong, the messed up one would go into the shred box. If I realized that a spreadsheet was not designed right or not doing what I wanted to do, it would go into the shred box. If I had too many copies of a paper, the unneeded extra copies would go into the shred box. Tax returns were always generating incorrect forms that needed to be shredded. So there was constant shredding every day of ordinary documents. Now, if a workpaper was corrected or changed by a reviewer, then the older copy would be kept in the file with a big S scrawled on it for superseded behind the corrected version. But, generally, vast amounts of paper with potentially sensitive information are shredded every day in accounting firms. There isn't enough space to store it all nor do you want such info thrown out where an outsider could go through it at a dump. Shredding and burning was the safe thing to do.

Also, employees committing fraud would be aware of the web cameras. They would clearly try to dispose of the documents out of the view of the cameras.

Plus, the cameras and storage of their films would take up a lot of memory space. That equals dollars which means even higher fees for auditing or lower profits for the accountants (which in turn means that that only the least able and most desparate people would be recruited for the job -- possibly creating an even worse potential for fraud).

Finally, web cameras would go beyond the normal employee privacy concerns about internal security cameras. At least those cameras are only viewed by internal security people, not some wierdo halfway around the world (or a competitor).

69 posted on 03/14/2002 8:52:41 PM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: japaneseghost
you do the bad thing thinking the accountant or lawyer will take the fall for you, but NO, unless you have proof they gave you such advice.

Attorney's can take advantage of attorney-client privilege to protect them when they give such illegal advice. Their conversations can't be used in a court of law. Accountants, however, rarely have that protection (though I do recall some lobbying in some states to create a similar protection for accountants -- I don't know if they've yet succeeded). That's one reason why some CPA's become attorneys, to gain that extra level of protection.

Accountants who give clients illegal advice take a great risk if they are the one's who sign a tax return. The illegal details would need to be reasonably hidden to keep the tax preparer from trouble. That's one reason why tax preparers giving illegal advice often do the return for cash and don't sign it to minimize their risk. Of course, anyone using such an accountant is very aware that they're doing something illegal and deserves to get burned.

70 posted on 03/14/2002 9:04:49 PM PST by LenS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LenS
Relax. I was joking about the cameras.
71 posted on 03/14/2002 9:06:20 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: cactmh
Since the late 90's

Read my Post #54

72 posted on 03/15/2002 4:00:17 AM PST by COBOL2Java
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
Maybe like a dead fish in a toilet bowl! Just waiting for the cleansing flush!
73 posted on 03/15/2002 9:14:24 AM PST by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-73 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson