On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration...
Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!
Question:
Transcribed Image Text:
On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity? On March 26, 2002, the SEC charged six Waste Man- agement executive officers for the perpetration of a five-year financial fraud. The following is an article summarizing the SEC's complaint against these officers: The complaint names Waste Management's former most senior officers: Dean L. Buntrock, Waste Man- agement's founder, chairman of the board of direc- tors, and chief executive officer during most of the relevant period; Phillip B. Rooney, president and chief operating officer, director, and CEO for a por- tion of the relevant period; James E. Koenig, executive vice president and chief financial officer; Thomas C. Hau, vice president, corporate controller, and chief accounting officer; Herbert Getz, senior vice presi- dent, general counsel, and secretary; and Bruce D. Tobecksen, vice president of finance. According to the complaint, the defendants vio- lated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the fed- eral securities laws. The Commission is seeking injunctions prohibiting future violations, disgorge- ment of defendants' ill-gotten gains, civil money pen- alties, and officer and director bars against all defendants. The complaint alleges that defendants fraudu- lently manipulated the company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The com- pany's revenues were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multi- tude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, the complaint charges that defendants: • Avoided depreciation expenses on their garbage trucks by both assigning unsupported and inflated salvage values and extending their useful lives • Assigned arbitrary salvage values to other assets that previously had no salvage value • Failed to record expenses for decreases in the value of landfills as they were filled with waste Refused to record expenses necessary to write off the costs of unsuccessful and abandoned landfill development projects • Established inflated environmental reserves (liabil- ities) in connection with acquisitions so that the excess reserves could be used to avoid recording unrelated operating expenses • Improperly capitalized a variety of expenses • Failed to establish sufficient reserves (liabilities) to pay for income taxes and other expenses. Defendants' improper accounting practices were cen- tralized at corporate headquarters, according to the complaint. Each year, Buntrock, Rooney, and others prepared an annual budget in which they set earn- ings targets for the upcoming year. During the year, they monitored the company's actual operating results and compared them to the quarterly targets set in the budget, the complaint says. To reduce expenses and inflate earnings artificially, defendants then primarily used "top-level adjustments" to con- form the company's actual results to the predeter- mined earnings targets, according to the complaint. The inflated earnings of prior periods then became the floor for future manipulations. The consequences, however, created what Hau referred to as a "one-off" problem. To sustain the scheme, earnings fraudu- lently achieved in one period had to be replaced in the next. Defendants allegedly concealed their scheme in a variety of ways. They are charged with making false and misleading statements about the company's accounting practices, financial condition, and future prospects in filings with the Commission, reports to shareholders, and press releases. They are also are charged with using accounting manipulations known as "netting" and "geography" to make reported results appear better than they actually were and avoid public scrutiny. Defendants alleg- edly used netting to eliminate approximately $490 million in current period operating expenses and accumulated prior period accounting misstatements by offsetting them against unrelated one-time gains on the sale or exchange of assets. They are charged with using geography entries to move tens of mil- lions of dollars between various line items on the company's income statement to, in Koenig's words, "make the financials look the way we want to show them." Defendants were allegedly aided in their fraud by the company's long-time auditor, Arthur Ander- sen LLP, which repeatedly issued unqualified audit reports on the company's materially false and mis- leading annual financial statements. At the outset of the fraud, management capped Andersen's audit fees and advised the Andersen engagement partner that the firm could earn additional fees through "special work." Andersen nevertheless identified the company's improper accounting practices and quantified much of the impact of those practices on the company's financial statements. Andersen annually presented company management with what it called Proposed Adjusting Journal Entries (PAJES) to correct errors that understated expenses and overstated earnings in the company's financial statements. Management consistently refused to make the adjustments called for by the PAJES, according to the complaint. Instead, defendants secretly entered into an agreement with Andersen fraudulently to write off the accumulated errors over periods of up to ten years and to change the underlying accounting practices, but to do so only in future periods, the complaint charges. The signed, four- page agreement, known as the Summary of Action Steps (attached to the Commission's complaint), identified improper accounting practices that went to the core of the company's operations and pre- scribed 32 "must do" steps for the company to fol- low to change those practices. The Action Steps thus constituted an agreement between the company and its outside auditor to cover up past frauds by committing additional frauds in the future, the complaint charges. Defendants could not even comply with the Action Steps agreement, according to the complaint. Writing off the errors and changing the underlying account- ing practices as prescribed in the agreement would have prevented the company from meeting earnings targets and defendants from enriching themselves, the complaint says. Defendants' scheme eventually unraveled. In mid- July 1997, a new CEO ordered a review of the com- pany's accounting practices. That review ultimately led to the restatement of the company's financial statements for 1992 through the third quarter of 1997. When the company filed its restated financial statements in February 1998, the company acknowl- edged that it had misstated its pre-tax earnings by approximately $1.7 billion. At the time, the restate- ment was the largest in corporate history. As news of the company's overstatement of earn- ings became public, Waste Management's share- holders (other than the defendants who sold company stock and thus avoided losses) lost more than $6 billion in the market value of their invest- ments when the stock price plummeted by more than 33 percent. 1. The SEC is often called the "watchdog" of corporate America. How does it assist in preventing fraud? 2. According to the summary, why did the Waste Management executives commit the fraud? 3. You are an ambitious manager in the sales department of a company and have just received the upcoming year's targeted earnings report. You are concerned that top management has set revenue targets for your division that are practically unreachable. However, anticipating a promotion to vice president of sales if your division maintains good performance, you are determined to reach management's goal. What actions would you take to satisfy management's expectations and still maintain your integrity?
Expert Answer:
Answer rating: 100% (QA)
publicly listedtraded companies to file their audited financial reports annually called financials strictly in the prescribed formats for example fili... View the full answer
Related Book For
Business Law The Ethical Global and E-Commerce Environment
ISBN: 978-0071317658
15th edition
Authors: Jane Mallor, James Barnes, Thomas Bowers, Arlen Langvardt
Posted Date:
Students also viewed these economics questions
-
Unit Selling Price $400 $300 Deluxe Suite Suite Standard Room $ Correct all your answers to 2-decimal places No need to write down the $ or % in your answers. Unit Variable Cost $80 $50 $...
-
Find the future value of a five year $100,000 investment that pays 8.75 percent and that has the following compounding periods: a. Quarterly. b. Monthly. c. Daily. d. Continuous.
-
Following your retirement as senior vice president of finance for a large company, you joined the board of Cayman Grand Cruises, Inc. You serve on the compensation committee and help set the bonuses...
-
What is the output of the following application? A. 5,LONG B. 6,LONG C. 5,null D. 6,null E. The code does not compile. F. The code compiles but throws an exception at runtime. package fly; public...
-
What three funding categories are used to estimate life insurance needs? Explain the purpose of each.
-
Fill in the blanks with the correct terms from the list below. Adjusting entry ..........................................depreciation Book value...
-
In the Young's interference experiment shown in Fig. 5-5-9pp, the normalized power spectral density \(\widehat{\mathcal{G}}(v)\) of the light is measured at point \(Q\) by a spectrometer. The mutual...
-
Use Worksheet 5.2. Aurelia Montenegro is currently renting an apartment for $725 per month and paying $275 annually for renters insurance. She just found a small town-house that she can buy for...
-
A fund manager wants to hedge the exposure of her US equity portfolio using futures contracts on the S&P 500. Her portfolio has a value of 10 million USD and a beta of 1.4. The S&P 500 futures is...
-
Using lab 7 with a three-day lead time (all original values), we will analyze six different scenarios to determine which would be the best scenario based on the total cost. Scenario A - Min is 3,500...
-
b). Solve x*. d*y + 6x3 dy +9x25 dx3 d'y +3x +y (1+ log x)? dx+ dx2
-
A local class can access which type of local variables? (Choose two.) A. final B. private C. effectively final D. static E. default F. const
-
Which statement about functional interfaces is incorrect? A. A functional interface can have any number of static methods. B. A functional interface can have any number of default methods. C. A...
-
Which of the following best describes the flow of execution in this for loop if beta always returns false? for (alpha; beta; gamma) { delta; } A. alpha B. alpha, beta C. alpha, beta, gamma. D. alpha,...
-
Which are true statements comparing for-each and traditional for loops? (Choose two.) A. Both can iterate through an array starting with the first element. B. Only the for-each loop can iterate...
-
How many of the String objects are eligible for garbage collection right before the end of the main() method? A. None B. One C. Two D. Three E. None of the above public static void main(String[]...
-
2. Identify and indicate on the diagram where are all the different currents. Write down any equations that relate the currents (hint: use one of Kirchhoff rules). Identify the potential differences...
-
A company has the following incomplete production budget data for the first quarter: In the previous December, ending inventory was 200 units, which was the minimum required, at 10% of projected...
-
Michael Delgado and his wife, Linette, arrived at Trax Bar & Grill (a California establishment) between 10:00 and 10:30 p.m. on a Saturday night. During the approximately 90 minutes the Delgados were...
-
ScienceNOW is the website of the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS), and it serves as a daily Internet news service. An advertisement on ScienceNOW sought "news tips" and...
-
Linda Schiernbeck rented a house from Clark and Rosa Davis. Approximately one month after she moved in, Schiernbeck noticed a discolored area on one of the walls. There was a screw in the middle of...
-
Consider an experiment that selects a cell phone camera and records the recycle time of a flash (the time taken to ready the camera for another flash). The possible values for this time depend on the...
-
Suppose that the recycle times of two cameras are recorded. The extension of the positive real line \(R\) is to take the sample space to be the positive quadrant of the plane \[ S=R^{+} \times R^{+}...
-
Consider the sample space \(S=\{y y, y n, n y, n n\}\) in Example 2.2. Suppose that the subset of outcomes for which at least one camera conforms is denoted as \(E_{1}\). Then, \[ E_{1}=\{y y, y n, n...
Study smarter with the SolutionInn App