09.02.2013 Views

Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

Enron Corp. - University of California | Office of The President

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

designed to reassure investors that the transactions were fair to the Company. <strong>Enron</strong> stated in the<br />

Form 10-Q for the 2nQ and 3rdQ 99 that "[m]anagement believes that the terms <strong>of</strong> the transactions<br />

were reasonable and no less favorable than the terms <strong>of</strong> similar arrangements with unrelated third<br />

parties." <strong>The</strong> Form 10-Q for the 1stQ 00 read: "the terms <strong>of</strong> the transactions with related parties<br />

were reasonable and are representative <strong>of</strong> terms that would be negotiated with unrelated third<br />

parties."<br />

516. Contrary to the defendants' representations, <strong>Enron</strong>'s transactions with its related<br />

parties were not fair to <strong>Enron</strong> and were not on terms representative <strong>of</strong> those that could be obtained<br />

in arm's-length transactions with third parties. In fact, the transactions with <strong>Enron</strong>'s related parties<br />

were grossly unfair to <strong>Enron</strong> and set up in a manner to permit the Company to pay <strong>of</strong>f key <strong>Enron</strong><br />

insiders, including Fastow and certain favored investments banks and bankers, for their participation<br />

in the scheme, which included arranging the illicit and illegal financial transactions with those<br />

related parties on terms that no independent third party would ever have agreed to.<br />

C. <strong>Enron</strong>'s Failure to Make Proposed Audit Adjustments and Reclassifications<br />

517. <strong>Enron</strong> has also admitted to failing to make proposed audit adjustments and<br />

reclassifications it was informed about by Andersen in prior years because it had considered those<br />

adjustments "immaterial." In each year, the changes which <strong>Enron</strong> refused to make would have<br />

reduced <strong>Enron</strong>'s net income. <strong>Enron</strong> has admitted that the proposed adjustment for 97 was<br />

$51 million. This represented 48% <strong>of</strong> net income and 10% <strong>of</strong> recurring net income. Yet <strong>Enron</strong><br />

considered this amount to be "immaterial." However, <strong>Enron</strong> was required to consider the materiality<br />

<strong>of</strong> events in the aggregate. SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin ("SAB") No. 99 states: 12<br />

12 Even though SAB No. 99 was issued in 8/99, after the time <strong>Enron</strong> and Andersen made these<br />

decisions, SAB No. 99 expressed that it did not create new GAAP, but instead reemphasized existing<br />

GAAP.<br />

- 359 -

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!