Post #32,222
3/14/02 4:33:08 PM
|
DOJ going for criminal charges against Arthur Andersen
[link|http://www.nando.net/business/story/303213p-2642872c.html|Somebody's gotta take the rap]
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON (March 14, 2002 11:09 a.m. EST) - The Justice Department prepared to bring criminal charges against Arthur Andersen after the accounting firm spurned a deadline to plead guilty in the Enron scandal, sources familiar with the proceedings said Thursday.
Andersen accused the Justice Department of a "gross abuse of government power" and said criminal charges would be a "death penalty" against the firm. One person familiar with the matter indicated that federal obstruction-of-justice charges would be filed in Houston as early as Thursday afternoon.
A 9 a.m. Justice deadline for Andersen to plead guilty passed without any official word from either side, but in a letter to the department, Andersen lawyers signaled strongly that there would be no guilty plea.
I say:
A pox on both their houses. But Arthur Andersen's first.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Truth is that which is the case. Accept no substitutes.
If competence is considered "hubris" then may I and my country always be as "arrogant" as we can possibly manage.
|
Post #32,236
3/14/02 5:00:02 PM
|
complete agreement
Ya dont sign off on shoddy stuff unless you have yer legal bases covered, from what we have heard so far that isnt the case.
thanx,
bill
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,283
3/15/02 12:10:19 AM
|
Only surprised in one thing
I'm only surprised here that they are targeting Anderson before Enron.
If nothing else, both companies must have violated some laws in that little frenzy of evidence shreading right before the collapse.
But why start with Anderson?
Jay
|
Post #32,298
3/15/02 7:07:30 AM
|
Easier to prove Obs. of Just. than viol..s of securities law
|
Post #33,809
3/29/02 9:36:18 AM
|
Re: Why start with Andersen?
Because they aren't Bushie boy's oil buddies, and ya gotta have a show for the peepul.
The best scale for an experimental design is ten millimeters to the centimeter.
|
Post #32,284
3/15/02 12:11:56 AM
|
Shredding, be interesting
It'll be interesting to see how Arthur Anderson explains the shredding of papers related to Enron.
Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
|
Post #32,445
3/16/02 3:24:21 PM
|
Can't do that
I thot you could only bring criminal charges against *individuals*, not organizations. IOW, you can put managers in jail, etc., but not an entire company.
I have never heard of a company being convicted of criminal charges. Any prior cases?
A.A. will probably file bankruptcy before such a trial finished anyhow.
The practical thing to do would be to fine them enuf to really hurt, but not kill them. Outright killing a company is not very economical and very disruptive to regular employees.
I wonder what the courts say about peons who follow orders to do bad things? I have been in such sticky situations (in smaller companies), and it aint fun at all.
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #32,454
3/16/02 4:46:42 PM
|
INAL, but try pollution violations, anti-trust, frauds.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,605
3/18/02 1:49:20 PM
|
Sure you can
When you create a coporation, you are creating a separate legal entity. That's one of the main reasons for incorporating a business in the first place.
Imagine you want to set up your own consultancy, Tablizer, Inc. You go get a lawyer (or however you want to do it), fill out all the paperwork, and you create your legally-registered corporation in whichever district you choose. You give the Tablizer, Inc company $50,000. You are now the sole proprietor of Tablizer, Inc. TI goes out and buys computers, does advertising, whatever. You get a client. You're going to do some work for them creating widgets to interface with their foobars. You do your work, they pay Tablizer, Inc $250,000. Except that your widgets completely break their foobars, and they want to get their money back. You say, "But I did the work, and I delivered my widgets to you. You can't have it."
So they sue you. But they can't sue *YOU*. They can only sue Tablizer, Inc. And through the company, your liability is limited by the assets of the company (say you spent all the original $50k and half of the money they paid you. All you've left now is $125k. Plus computers and other various and sundries worth $25k.) Insurance notwithstanding, the most they can sue you for is $150k. They can't go after your house. They can't take your car away. They can't get at your wife's personal investments.
That is one reason why corporations are created. Limitation of liability.
So, yes. Companies can be sued. I don't know that, in this case, "Arthur Andersen, Inc" can be sent to jail. But fines are highly likely.
-YendorMike
Real programmers use "vi a.out".
|
Post #32,642
3/18/02 5:19:17 PM
|
Re: You are now the sole proprietor of Tablizer, Inc
Nope, bad word choice. Sole proprietor is different form of business (of corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship) and is fully liable. You mean sole stochholder.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,648
3/18/02 5:35:25 PM
|
Oops
Sorry. Been 8 years since I've taken any form of class anywhere close to relating to that.
Otherwise, it was close. I hope. :)
IANAL, etc.
-YendorMike
Real programmers use "vi a.out".
|
Post #33,790
3/28/02 10:29:09 PM
|
still civil
(* They can only sue Tablizer, Inc. And through the company, your liability is limited by the assets of the company *)
But you are talking about a *civil* suit, not a criminal suit.
I don't think there has *ever* been a (successful?) criminal suit against a company. Do you know of any instances?
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #32,489
3/16/02 10:39:35 PM
|
Arthur Andersen is dead anyway, at least the accounting side
You think I'll ever check that box on the proxy form "Approve the appointment of Arthur Andersen as auditor" again?
Corporate accountants are, on paper, there to serve the stockholders. The stockholders supposedly select them, although stockholder voting, other than by instituions, is usualy a joke. But now stockholders can (fairly or not - from what I've heard AA is not significantly more corrupt than the other main firms) put a name to their pain, and that name is doomed.
----
United we stand
Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
|
Post #32,516
3/17/02 3:53:52 PM
|
Full agreement. And I vote on those proxies.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
