Employment-At-Will Case Case Example A: Elaine has sued Jerry because Jerry fired her. Elaine was on the job for two months.The job offer letter that Jerry had sent her mentioned the great career opportunities at the company and stated that her annual salary would be $30‚000. The company is an employment‐at‐will employer. Elaine was given no reason for the termination. After the termination‚ Jerry hired a man named Kramer‚ who had less job experience and education than Elaine‚ for the position
Premium Employment
danryoung@netzero.net Presented the Spring Meeting of the CAS New Orleans‚ Louisiana May 6‚ 2009 The Story of the AIG Accounting Scandal The Companies The Participants Regulatory Scrutiny Intensifies The Prosecution Case The Defense Case Relevant Laws and Regulations The Fate of the Participants The Companies AIG Overview (2007) World’s largest insurance and financial services company 93‚000 employees Business in 130 countries Led by Maurice (“Hank”)
Premium Fraud
Regina Case Regina Company Inc. was known as a complacent slow-growth company and was dominated by Hoover and Eureka within the floorcare industry. Donald Sheelen was a promising young individual when he was hired first as the head of the marketing division in Regina‚ and then became its president. Shortly after becoming company president‚ Sheelen set out to make Regina the industry’s number one company and repeatedly vowed to “bomb” Hoover‚ the number one firm in the industry at the time. Sheelen
Premium Stock market Big Four auditors Accounting scandals
German Jordanian University Business Ethics (316) Lecturer: Mr. Montaser Tawalbeh Case Study Enron: Were They the Crookedest Guys in the Room? Case Summary Enron has become the classic case on business ethics. Enron formed after the merger of Internorth Incorporated and Houston Natural Gas in 1985. On January 1‚ 1987‚ as part of the merger agreement‚ Ken Lay became the new CEO. In 1990‚ Ken Lay hired Jeffrey Skilling from McKinsey and Company as the Head of Enron Finance. By 1995‚
Premium Enron
Enron Case The internal controls that were ignored when LJM1 was created were one‚ LJM’s books were kept separate from Enron’s. LJM1 ignored some of Enron’s entries in the books that were missing. Outsiders owned less than 3% of the Special Purpose Entities equities. There was an error made by Arthur Andersen to let LJM’s financial statement to remain unconsolidated. If the financial statements had been consolidated‚ some of the errors could have been found. They may have even had some time to correct
Premium Enron
gas‚ but it later became a market maker in facilitating the buying and selling of futures of natural gas‚ electricity‚ broadband‚ and other products. However‚ Enron’s continuous growth eventually came to an end as a complicated financial statement‚ fraud‚ and multiple scandals sent Enron through a downward spiral to bankruptcy. During the 1980s‚ several major national energy corporations began lobbying Washington to deregulate the energy business. Their claim was that the extra competition resulting
Premium Enron
Part B: What role did the CFO play in creating the problems that led to Enron’s financial problems? In order to prevent the losses from appearing on its financial statements‚ Enron used questionable accounting practices. To misrepresent its true financial condition‚ Andrew Fastow‚ the Enron’s CFO‚ takes his role involving unconsolidated partnerships and “special purpose entities”‚ which would later become known as the LJM partnership. Taking advantage from the SPEs’s main purpose‚ which provided
Premium Enron
Enron case and the organizations involved……. 5 Background information & industry…………………………………………….. 5 Organizations and officers involved……………………………………………..6 Accounting firm and partners involved………………………………………….8 Enron’s industry………………………………………………………………….. 9 Enron’s injured parties…………………………………………………………… 10 (II) Enron’s accounting fraud and misrepresentation……………………. 11 Explanation of the fraud…………………………………………………………. 11 Damages incurred…………………………………………………………………12 Final outcome of the Case………………………………………………………
Premium Balance sheet Generally Accepted Accounting Principles Financial statements
CASE BRIEF Title of Case: Stoneridge Investment Partners‚ LLC‚ Petitioner v. Scientific-Atlanta‚ Inc.‚ et al. 128 S. Ct. 761 (2008) Facts: The plaintiff‚ Stoneridge Investment Partners‚ LLC‚ presented a securities fraud class action against the defendant‚ Charter Communications’ vendors‚ Scientific-Atlanta. Charter communications is a publicly traded cable company that services millions of customers throughout America. Charter contracts with vendors for equipment that is used for their company
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Appeal
1. Adsteam Adonist@gmx.de‚ quigonjinn@hotmail.de was a very model of conglomerate(jujie). In the eyes of the outside‚ it was a successful company. But it’s not true. It’s far from other companies in its complex structure. Adsteam group comprised numerous less-than-majority-owned companies. It acquired major share-holdings in numerous companies throughout the 1980’s. The acquisition strategy resulted in an extremely complicated cross-shareholding-based structure. It was noting that the maximum amount
Premium Auditing Internal control Audit