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.

connection with an SEC investigation into a massive accounting scandal at Waste Management, the<br />

commission found that Andersen's internal documents revealed that Andersen not only knew <strong>of</strong> the<br />

accounting fraud, but was deeply involved in its coverup.<br />

964. What happened with the <strong>Enron</strong> client documents is a classic example <strong>of</strong> Andersen's<br />

"scorched earth" document destruction directive in action. During the Summer and Fall <strong>of</strong> 01, a<br />

series <strong>of</strong> serious developments led Andersen to believe that civil litigation and government<br />

investigation was imminent against <strong>Enron</strong> and, as a consequence, Andersen's deep involvement<br />

would undoubtedly implicate it in any litigation or investigation. In 8/01, <strong>Enron</strong> Vice <strong>President</strong><br />

Sherron Watkins detailed specific examples <strong>of</strong> <strong>Enron</strong>'s long-running fraudulent financial reporting<br />

to Andersen. By mid-9/01, Andersen's top audit specialists in the Chicago <strong>of</strong>fice, including Stewart,<br />

began to review their old e-mail and <strong>Enron</strong> memos, and in doing so, concluded that many<br />

memoranda that Andersen partners had written approving certain <strong>Enron</strong> accounting decisions were<br />

obviously improper and terribly wrong. Just as in the Waste Management debacle, Andersen's own<br />

memoranda and e-mail from the Houston and Chicago <strong>of</strong>fices documented that Andersen's Chicago<br />

<strong>of</strong>fice had approved the improper accounting at the client and once again evidenced the national<br />

<strong>of</strong>fice's complicity. Immediately, Chicago <strong>of</strong>fice partners, including audit partners and in-house<br />

lawyers and "risk-management experts," began debating in almost daily conference calls with<br />

Houston partners about how to alter the original memos or create new memos to mitigate the<br />

potential damage. <strong>The</strong>y were joined by Nancy Temple, an in-house lawyer at the firm, who<br />

reminded everyone about Andersen's policy on destroying "unnecessary" records. <strong>The</strong> e-mail sent<br />

by Temple reminding personnel to comply with firm policy on document retention was an<br />

occurrence used by Andersen almost exclusively when litigation was envisioned. Such "reminders"<br />

- 612 -

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!