Minicase Solutions
MINI-CASES
Question
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Andersen: An Obstruction of Justice?
C.83
C.83
C.83
C.83
C.83
B.63
C.83
2. PTL Club—The Harbinger of Things to Come
3. GM
11.74
12.65
11.74
12.65
11.74
12.65
11.74
11.74
11.74
4. Unhealthy Accounting at HealthSouth
4.64
4.64
5.70
5.70
C.82
G.84
5. KPMG: How Many Firms?
B.64
B.64
B.64
1.56
6. Something Went Sour at Parmalat
6.58
7.72
4.65
12.64
7. GE: How Much Are Auditors Paid?
B.65
B.65
B.66
B.66
5.71
5.71
8. Satyam
The above summarizes which chapter(s) and module(s) apply to the questions in the Mini-Cases.
ANDERSEN: AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
1. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary corrupt means (selected meanings relevant to this issue):
to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions or to degrade with unsound principles and or moral values to become morally debase to cause disintegration or ruin
The term corrupt, especially as indicated in second bullet above, could be applied to the actions of Andersen as a firm and might indicate that the firm was corrupt. It is important here to know how the definition normally used by the 5th Circuit Court included the word dishonest, which does not appear in any of these definitions.
2. The issues are debatable and still center on the motives of David Duncan when he ordered the shredding of documents and whether Andersen had an obligation to modify its procedures if an investigation was imminent. Remember, once Andersen was served with formal notice of an investigation, no documents were shredded.
3. The opinions of students will vary. Clearly, the contested issues concerning jury instructions were all decided in favor of the prosecution. The fact that by impeding an investigation, even without meaning to do so, was allowed to indicate that an obstruction of justice occurred could have major legal ramifications if used as a precedent. For example, if on your way home
Question
Case
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Andersen: An Obstruction of Justice?
C.83
C.83
C.83
C.83
C.83
B.63
C.83
2. PTL Club—The Harbinger of Things to Come
3. GM
11.74
12.65
11.74
12.65
11.74
12.65
11.74
11.74
11.74
4. Unhealthy Accounting at HealthSouth
4.64
4.64
5.70
5.70
C.82
G.84
5. KPMG: How Many Firms?
B.64
B.64
B.64
1.56
6. Something Went Sour at Parmalat
6.58
7.72
4.65
12.64
7. GE: How Much Are Auditors Paid?
B.65
B.65
B.66
B.66
5.71
5.71
8. Satyam
The above summarizes which chapter(s) and module(s) apply to the questions in the Mini-Cases.
ANDERSEN: AN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?
1. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary corrupt means (selected meanings relevant to this issue):
to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions or to degrade with unsound principles and or moral values to become morally debase to cause disintegration or ruin
The term corrupt, especially as indicated in second bullet above, could be applied to the actions of Andersen as a firm and might indicate that the firm was corrupt. It is important here to know how the definition normally used by the 5th Circuit Court included the word dishonest, which does not appear in any of these definitions.
2. The issues are debatable and still center on the motives of David Duncan when he ordered the shredding of documents and whether Andersen had an obligation to modify its procedures if an investigation was imminent. Remember, once Andersen was served with formal notice of an investigation, no documents were shredded.
3. The opinions of students will vary. Clearly, the contested issues concerning jury instructions were all decided in favor of the prosecution. The fact that by impeding an investigation, even without meaning to do so, was allowed to indicate that an obstruction of justice occurred could have major legal ramifications if used as a precedent. For example, if on your way home