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.

in its <strong>Enron</strong> audits, the firm needed to 1) split its audit from its consulting practice; 2) ban the current<br />

financial incentives tying auditors' compensation to selling consulting work; 3) refrain from<br />

performing internal audit work on audit clients; and 4) adopt a waiting period before Andersen<br />

partners could go to work for a client.<br />

D. Andersen Destroyed Evidence <strong>of</strong> its Conflicts and Complicity<br />

917. As alleged in 962-966 in the Fall <strong>of</strong> 01, as a federal investigation into <strong>Enron</strong>'s<br />

collapse ensued and the certainty <strong>of</strong> litigation regarding Andersen's role in <strong>Enron</strong>'s accounting<br />

loomed on the horizon, Andersen knew its own documents, if found, would deeply implicate the firm<br />

in the accounting scandal. While Andersen has a pr<strong>of</strong>essional duty to retain and preserve any and<br />

all documents and information to support and defend the conclusions reached and work performed<br />

during its audit and review services, this duty was directly at odds with 1) its overwhelming desire<br />

to get rid <strong>of</strong> any damaging documents that would implicate Andersen, and; 2) avoiding at all costs<br />

the revelation that it had violated a standing SEC consent decree by participating in yet another cover<br />

up <strong>of</strong> accounting fraud at one <strong>of</strong> the firm's largest clients. In connection with a 98 SEC investigation<br />

into a massive accounting scandal at Waste Management, the Commission found that Andersen's<br />

internal documents revealed that Andersen not only knew <strong>of</strong> the accounting fraud at its client, but<br />

was deeply involved in the secret cover up. As a result, the SEC slapped Andersen with the first<br />

anti-fraud injunction in 20 years and the largest civil penalty ($7 million) in SEC history for an<br />

accounting firm. In addition, the SEC sanctioned several high ranking Andersen partners for their<br />

highly inappropriate conduct, and required Andersen to sign a consent decree forbidding the firm<br />

from any future wrongdoing.<br />

918. Because <strong>of</strong> these issues and other events, by the Fall <strong>of</strong> 01 Andersen had internally<br />

come to the cold realization that an imminent investigation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enron</strong>'s financial accounting would<br />

- 587 -

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!