Ebook Contemporary auditing - Real issues and cases (9th edition): Part 2

(BQ) Part 1 contents Contemporary auditing - Real issues and cases has contents: Ethical responsibilities of independent auditors, professional roles, professional issues, international cases.

SECTION 5

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES

Of INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

This page intentionally left blank

CASE 5.1

Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc.

If virtue is not its own reward,

I don’t know any other stipend attached to it.

Lord Byron

Act 1

Russell Smith knew why he had been summoned to the office of A Walter Rognlien, the 74‑year‑old chairman of the board and chief executive officer (CEO) of Smith’s employer, Cardillo Travel Systems, Inc.1 Just two days earlier, Cardillo’s in‑house at‑

torney, Raymond Riley, had requested that Smith, the company’s controller, sign an affidavit regarding the nature of a transaction Rognlien had negotiated with United Airlines The affidavit stated that the transaction involved a $203,000 payment by United Airlines to Cardillo but failed to disclose why the payment was being made

or for what specific purpose the funds would be used The affidavit included a state‑

ment indicating that Cardillo’s stockholders’ equity exceeded $3 million, a statement that Smith knew to be incorrect Smith also knew that Cardillo was involved in a law‑

suit and that a court injunction issued in the case required the company to maintain stockholders’ equity of at least $3 million Because of the blatant misrepresentation in the affidavit concerning Cardillo’s stockholders’ equity and a sense of uneasiness re‑

garding United Airlines’ payment to Cardillo, Smith had refused to sign the affidavit

When Smith stepped into Rognlien’s office on that day in May 1985, he found not only Rognlien but also Riley and two other Cardillo executives One of the other ex‑

ecutives was Esther Lawrence, the firm’s energetic 44‑year‑old president and chief operating officer (COO) and Rognlien’s wife and confidante Lawrence, a long‑

time employee, had assumed control of Cardillo’s day‑to‑day operations in 1984

Rognlien’s two sons by a previous marriage had left the company in the early 1980s following a power struggle with Lawrence and their father

As Smith sat waiting for the meeting to begin, his apprehension mounted Although Cardillo had a long and proud history, in recent years the company had begun ex‑

periencing serious financial problems founded in 1935 and purchased in 1956 by Rognlien, Cardillo ranked as the fourth‑largest company in the travel agency indus‑

try and was the first to be listed on a national stock exchange Cardillo’s annual rev‑

enues had steadily increased after Rognlien acquired the company, approaching

$100 million by 1984 Unfortunately, the company’s operating expenses had increased more rapidly Between 1982 and 1984, Cardillo posted collective losses of nearly

$1.5 million These poor operating results were largely due to an aggressive franchis‑

ing strategy implemented by Rognlien In 1984 alone that strategy more than doubled the number of travel agency franchises operated by Cardillo

Shortly after the meeting began, the overbearing and volatile Rognlien demanded that Smith sign the affidavit When Smith steadfastly refused, Rognlien showed

1 The events discussed in this case were reconstructed principally from information included in Secu‑

rities and Exchange Commission, Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No 143, 4 August 1987

All quotations appearing in this case were taken from that document.

296 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

him the first page of an unsigned agreement between United Airlines and Cardillo

Rognlien then explained that the $203,000 payment was intended to cover expenses incurred by Cardillo in changing from American Airlines’ Sabre computer reserva‑

tion system to United Airlines’ Apollo system Although the payment was intended to reimburse Cardillo for those expenses and was refundable to United Airlines if not spent, Rognlien wanted Smith to record the payment immediately as revenue

Not surprisingly, Rognlien’s suggested treatment of the United Airlines payment would allow Cardillo to meet the $3 million minimum stockholders’ equity threshold established by the court order outstanding against the company Without hesitation, Smith informed Rognlien that recognizing the United Airlines payment as revenue would be improper At that point, “Rognlien told Smith that he was incompetent and unprofessional because he refused to book the United payment as income Rognlien further told Smith that Cardillo did not need a controller like Smith who would not do what was expected of him.”

Act 2

In November 1985, Helen Shepherd, the audit partner supervising the 1985 audit of Cardillo by Touche Ross, stumbled across information in the client’s files regarding the agreement Rognlien had negotiated with United Airlines earlier that year When Shepherd asked her subordinates about this agreement, one of them told her of a

$203,000 adjusting entry Cardillo had recorded in late June That entry, which fol‑

lows, had been approved by Lawrence and was apparently linked to the United Airlines–Cardillo transaction:

Shepherd’s subordinates had discovered the adjusting entry during their second‑quarter review of Cardillo’s form 10‑Q statement When asked, Lawrence had told the auditors that the entry involved commissions earned by Cardillo from United Airlines during the second quarter The auditors had accepted Lawrence’s explana‑

tion without attempting to corroborate it with other audit evidence

After discussing the adjusting entry with her subordinates, Shepherd questioned Lawrence Lawrence insisted that the adjusting entry had been properly recorded

Shepherd then requested that Lawrence ask United Airlines to provide Touche Ross with a confirmation verifying the key stipulations of the agreement with Cardillo

Shepherd’s concern regarding the adjusting entry stemmed from information she had reviewed in the client’s files that pertained to the United Airlines agreement

That information suggested that the United Airlines payment to Cardillo was refund‑

able under certain conditions and thus not recognizable immediately as revenue

Shortly after the meeting between Shepherd and Lawrence, Walter Rognlien con‑

tacted the audit partner Like Lawrence, Rognlien maintained that the $203,000 amount had been properly recorded as commission revenue during the second quarter Rognlien also told Shepherd that the disputed amount, which United Airlines paid to Cardillo during the third quarter of 1985, was not refundable to United Airlines under any circumstances After some prodding by Shepherd, Rognlien agreed to allow her to request a confirmation from United Airlines concerning certain features

of the agreement

Shepherd received the requested confirmation from United Airlines on December 17,

1986 The confirmation stated that the disputed amount was refundable through

1990 if certain stipulations of the contractual agreement between the two parties

cASe 5.1 c aRdillo t RavEl s ystEms , i nc 297

were not fulfilled.2 After receiving the confirmation, Shepherd called Rognlien and asked him to explain the obvious difference of opinion between United Airlines and Cardillo regarding the terms of their agreement Rognlien told Shepherd that he had

a secret arrangement with the chairman of the board of United Airlines “Rognlien claimed that pursuant to this confidential business arrangement, the $203,210 would never have to be repaid to United Shepherd asked Rognlien for permission to con‑

tact United’s chairman to confirm the confidential business arrangement Rognlien refused In fact, as Rognlien knew, no such agreement existed.”

A few days following Shepherd’s conversation with Rognlien, she advised William Kaye, Cardillo’s vice president of finance, that the $203,000 amount could not be rec‑

ognized as revenue until the contractual agreement with United Airlines expired in

1990 Kaye refused to make the appropriate adjusting entry, explaining that Lawrence had insisted that the payment from United Airlines be credited to a revenue account

On December 30, 1985, Rognlien called Shepherd and told her that he was terminat‑

ing Cardillo’s relationship with Touche Ross

In early february 1986, Cardillo filed a form 8‑K statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) notifying that agency of the company’s change

in auditors SEC regulations required Cardillo to disclose in the 8‑K statement any disagreements involving accounting, auditing, or financial reporting issues with its former auditor The 8‑K, signed by Lawrence, indicated that no such disagreements preceded Cardillo’s decision to dismiss Touche Ross SEC regulations also required Touche Ross to draft a letter commenting on the existence of any disagreements with Cardillo This letter had to be filed as an exhibit to the 8‑K statement In Touche Ross’s exhibit letter, Shepherd discussed the dispute involving the United Airlines payment to Cardillo Shepherd disclosed that the improper accounting treatment given that transaction resulted in misrepresented financial statements for Cardillo for the six months ended June 30, 1985, and the nine months ended September 30, 1985

In late february 1986, Raymond Riley, Cardillo’s legal counsel, wrote Shepherd and insisted that she had misinterpreted the United Airlines‑Cardillo transaction in the Touche Ross exhibit letter filed with the company’s 8‑K Riley also informed Shep‑

herd that Cardillo would not pay the $17,500 invoice that Touche Ross had submitted

to his company This invoice was for professional services Touche Ross had rendered prior to being dismissed by Rognlien

Act 3

On January 21, 1986, Cardillo retained KMG Main Hurdman (KMG) to replace Touche Ross as its independent audit firm KMG soon addressed the accounting treatment Cardillo had applied to the United Airlines payment When KMG personnel discussed the payment with Rognlien, he informed them of the alleged secret arrangement with United Airlines that superseded the written contractual agreement According

to Rognlien, the secret arrangement precluded United Airlines from demanding a refund of the $203,000 payment under any circumstances KMG refused to accept this explanation Roger Shlonsky, the KMG audit partner responsible for the Cardillo

2 Shepherd apparently never learned that the $203,000 payment was intended to reimburse Cardillo for expenses incurred in switching to United Airlines’ reservation system As a result, she focused almost exclusively on the question of when Cardillo should recognize the United Airlines payment as revenue

If she had been aware of the true nature of the payment, she almost certainly would have been even more adamant regarding the impropriety of the $203,000 adjusting entry.

298 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

engagement, told Rognlien that the payment would have to be recognized as reve‑

nue on a pro rata basis over the five‑year period of the written contractual agreement with United Airlines.3

Cardillo began experiencing severe liquidity problems in early 1986 These prob‑

lems worsened a few months later when a judge imposed a $685,000 judgment on Cardillo to resolve a civil suit filed against the company following the judge’s ruling, Raymond Riley alerted Rognlien and Lawrence that the adverse judgment qualified

as a “material event” and thus had to be reported to the SEC in a form 8‑K filing

In the memorandum he sent to his superiors, Riley discussed the serious implica‑

tions of not disclosing the settlement to the SEC: “My primary concern by not releas‑

ing such report and information is that the officers and directors of Cardillo may be subject to violation of rule 10b‑5 of the SEC rules by failing to disclose information that may be material to a potential investor.”

Within ten days of receiving Riley’s memorandum, Rognlien sold 100,000 shares of Cardillo stock in the open market Two weeks later, Lawrence issued a press release disclosing for the first time the adverse legal settlement However, Lawrence failed to disclose the amount of the settlement or that Cardillo remained viable only because Rognlien had invested in the company the proceeds from the sale of the 100,000 shares of stock Additionally, Lawrence’s press release underestimated the firm’s ex‑

pected loss for 1985 by approximately 300 percent

following Lawrence’s press release, Roger Shlonsky met with Rognlien and Lawrence Shlonsky informed them that the press release grossly understated Cardillo’s estimated loss for fiscal 1985 Shortly after that meeting, KMG resigned as Cardillo’s independent audit firm

E p i l o g u E

In May 1987, the creditors of Cardillo Travel Sys‑

tems, Inc., forced the company into involuntary bankruptcy proceedings Later that same year, the SEC concluded a lengthy investigation of the firm The SEC found that Rognlien, Lawrence, and Kaye had violated several provisions of the federal securities laws These violations included making false representations to outside auditors, failing to maintain accurate financial records, and failing to file prompt financial reports with the SEC In addition, the federal agency charged

Rognlien with violating the insider trading provi‑

sions of the federal securities laws As a result

of these findings, the SEC imposed permanent injunctions on each of the three individuals that prohibited them from engaging in future viola‑

tions of federal securities laws The SEC also at‑

tempted to recover from Rognlien the $237,000

he received from selling the 100,000 shares of Cardillo stock in April 1986 In January 1989, the two parties resolved this matter when Rognlien agreed to pay the SEC $60,000

3 Cardillo executives also successfully concealed from the KMG auditors the fact that the United Airlines payment was simply an advance payment to cover installation expenses for the new reservation system.

cASe 5.1 c aRdillo t RavEl s ystEms , i nc 299

Questions

1 Identify the accountants in this case who faced ethical dilemmas Also identify the parties who would be potentially affected by the outcome of each of these dilemmas What responsibility did the accountant in each case owe to these parties? Did the accountants fulfill these responsibilities?

2 Describe the procedures an auditor should perform during a review of a client’s quarterly financial statements In your opinion, did the Touche Ross auditors who discovered the $203,000 adjusting entry during their 1985 second‑quarter review take all appropriate steps to corroborate that entry? Should the auditors have immediately informed the audit partner, Helen Shepherd, of the entry?

3 In reviewing the United Airlines–Cardillo agreement, Shepherd collected evidence that supported the $203,000 adjusting entry as booked and evidence that suggested the entry was recorded improperly Identify each of these items of evidence What characteristics of audit evidence do the profession’s technical standards suggest auditors should consider? Analyze the audit evidence that Shepherd collected regarding the disputed entry in terms of those characteristics

4 What are the principal objectives of the SEC’s rules that require form 8‑K statements to be filed when public companies change auditors? Did Shepherd violate the client confidentiality rule when she discussed the United Airlines–

Cardillo transaction in the exhibit letter she filed with Cardillo’s 8‑K auditor change statement? In your opinion, did Shepherd have a responsibility to disclose to Cardillo executives the information she intended to include in the exhibit letter?

5 Do the profession’s technical standards explicitly require auditors to evaluate the integrity of a prospective client’s key executives? Identify the specific measures auditors can use to assess the integrity of a prospective client’s executives

This page intentionally left blank

CASE 5.2

American International Group, Inc

Cornelius Vander Starr wanted to see the world In 1918, the 26‑year‑old Californian emptied his bank account to purchase a one‑way ticket to the far East on a steamship

After “bumming around” Japan for several months, Vander Starr traveled to Shanghai, China, where he landed a job working for an insurance company Within a short pe‑

riod of time, Vander Starr realized that selling insurance was a low overhead business that was ideally suited for a young entrepreneurial type like himself so he quit his job and set up his own insurance agency, American Asiatic Underwriters Vander Starr’s business grew rapidly By the time of his death in the late 1960s, Starr’s one‑man firm had become a multi‑billion dollar international conglomerate with operating units

in Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the United States The Starr founda‑

tion that he created before his death ranks among the world’s largest philanthropic organizations

In 1948, the Chinese civil war forced Vander Starr to relocate his company’s head‑

quarters from Shanghai to New York City As he neared retirement, Vander Starr chose his protégé, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, to replace him as his company’s chief executive officer During the early 1960s, Greenberg had revamped the company’s business model Instead of focusing on selling life insurance and other insurance products for individuals, Greenberg convinced Starr that the company’s principal line of business should be insurance and other financial services products designed for large corporations In 1969, Greenberg took the company, which had been re‑

named American International Group, Inc (AIG), public by listing its stock on the New York Stock Exchange

Greenberg would serve as AIG’s top executive for nearly four decades Under his leadership, the company became known worldwide for the new and innovative fi‑

nancial services products that it continually developed and the aggressive methods that it used to market those products These efforts produced impressive financial results for the company By the turn of the century, AIG was one of the ten largest companies in the United States and among the 20 largest companies worldwide

In early 2001, a group of AIG executives came up with an idea for a new finan‑

cial service that they believed would appeal to a wide range of large corporations

This service would involve AIG creating customized “special purpose entities” or SPEs for such companies An SPE is typically a limited partnership that two or more companies join together to form Since an SPE is an unconsolidated subsidiary, a company can download or transfer underperforming assets and related liabilities to that entity to improve its apparent financial condition This “balance sheet manage‑

ment feature” of SPEs was the principal selling point that AIG intended to use in mar‑

keting its new service

In fact, many large corporations were already using SPEs “to perform cosmetic surgery on their balance sheets.”1 Enron Corporation, a large Houston‑based en‑

ergy company, was among the most prolific users of SPEs.2 Enron had significantly improved its apparent financial condition by “hiding” distressed assets and much of

1 J Kahn, “Off Balance Sheet–And Out of Control,” Fortune, 18 february 2002, 84.

2 See Enron Corporation, Case 1.1

302 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

its outstanding debt in hundreds of SPEs that it had created AIG’s management was convinced that, unlike Enron, most companies did not have the in‑house expertise

to develop their own SPEs

AIG’s executives realized that their new SPE service, which was effectively an accounting mechanism, would be more credible if one of the major accounting firms was involved in its development and marketing for that reason, AIG retained Michael Joseph, a partner in the national office of Ernst & Young (E&Y) and a

“nationally recognized expert on the accounting for structured financial vehicles and SPEs,”3 to help develop and market the new service “To assist AIG in its marketing”

of the new SPE service “Joseph caused E&Y to issue reports pursuant to Statement on

Auditing Standards No 50, ‘Reports on the Application of Accounting Principles.’”4

These SAS No 50 reports indicated that the “nonconsolidation accounting treat‑

ment” for the assets and liabilities transferred to an SPE that had been designed by AIG “was an appropriate application of GAAP.” In promoting its new SPE service,

“AIG referred to E&Y’s advice in its marketing materials and referred potential buyers directly to Joseph to answer accounting‑related questions.”

Among the first companies to express an interest in purchasing AIG’s SPE service was PNC financial Services Group, Inc (PNC), a large financial services firm that operated the fifth‑largest bank in the United States During the negotiations with AIG, PNC consulted with its independent auditors to determine whether the account‑

ing treatment for AIG’s SPE product complied with GAAP In fact, PNC’s audit firm was E&Y, which meant that the company’s auditors contacted Joseph to determine whether PNC’s proposed SPE would be GAAP‑compliant

Joseph gave the PNC auditors a copy of a SAS No 50 report that he had written for

AIG The auditors relied on that report “without performing any meaningful separate analysis” in deciding that the accounting treatment for the proposed SPE was accept‑

able Joseph billed the time that he spent interacting with the PNC auditors to the PNC audit engagement

During July 2001, PNC transferred nearly $100 million of nonperforming loans to

an SPE that was created by AIG A few months later, the company downloaded more than $100 million of additional nonperforming loans to another AIG‑created SPE In

an earnings press release in late 2001, PNC reported that it had $361 million of non‑

performing loans That figure did not include the more than $200 million of such loans that had been transferred to its SPEs

federal Reserve officials contacted PNC in November 2001 and inquired regarding the company’s nonperforming loans When those officials reviewed the transactions that had resulted in $207 million of PNC’s nonperforming loans being transferred to SPEs, they questioned whether those transfers were appropriate At this point, PNC executives asked Michael Joseph to intercede on their behalf with the federal Re‑

serve Joseph discussed the matter with the federal Reserve and defended the ac‑

counting and financial reporting treatment for the loans that had been transferred to SPEs The federal Reserve disagreed with Joseph and in January 2002 ordered PNC

to reverse the SPE transactions and include the $207 million of nonperforming loans

in the company’s consolidated financial statements

3 Securities and Exchange Commission, Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No 2523,

11 December 2006 Unless indicated otherwise, subsequent quotes in this case were taken from this source.

4 Accounting firms typically prepare SAS No 50 reports to provide a third party, other than an audit

client, with technical guidance on how “existing accounting principles apply to new transactions and financial products” (AU 625.01)

cASe 5.2 a mERican i ntERnational G Roup , i nc 303

The federal Reserve’s decision to force PNC to reverse its SPE transactions trig‑

gered an investigation of the company by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) In reviewing PNC’s SPE transactions, the SEC discovered that they were not in compliance with GAAP GAAP dictates that for a company to treat an SPE as an un‑

consolidated subsidiary, an external entity must have a minimum capital investment

of 3 percent in the SPE The external entity that had invested in PNC’s SPEs was AIG

However, AIG’s investments in the SPEs had not met the required 3 percent thresh‑

old, meaning that the financial data for PNC’s SPEs should have been included in the company’s consolidated financial statements

pany by the U.S Justice Department

In December 2006, the SEC issued an account‑

ing and auditing enforcement release focusing on Michael Joseph’s role in PNC’s SPE transactions

In this release, the SEC reported that “Joseph was

a cause of PNC’s violations” of federal securities laws The SEC maintained that Joseph should have known that PNC’s SPE transactions were not in compliance with GAAP In this same en‑

forcement release, the SEC alleged that Joseph’s dual role with AIG and PNC had been improper and had posed a conflict of interest for him

Joseph was involved in the development and marketing of the AIG [SPE] accounting product

He advised AIG on the structure, he prepared several SAS 50 letters used in marketing the product, he participated in conference calls with potential purchasers Consequently, Joseph was invested both financially and reputationally in the success of the [SPE]

product and therefore had a conflict of interest when he later evaluated the accounting for the product by E&Y’s audit client, PNC

The SEC went on to observe that Joseph’s conduct was “highly unreasonable” and undermined the independence of E&Y’s PNC

audit engagement team An accounting profes‑

sor interviewed by the Los Angeles Times used

an analogy to describe the likely impact that Joseph’s conduct had on the PNC audit engage‑

ment team “Did it bias the individual auditors

in this particular case? It’s like asking whether

40 years of smoking led to someone’s lung cancer.”5

The SEC suspended Joseph for three years from being involved with audits of public companies In March 2007, the SEC fined E&Y

$1.6 million for the firm’s independence viola‑

tions stemming from Joseph’s conduct The following month, E&Y agreed to pay approxi‑

mately $9 million to settle a class‑action lawsuit filed against it for its role in the PNC account‑

ing scandal

In late 2004, AIG agreed to pay $126 million

in fines and restitution for its involvement in PNC’s improper SPE accounting That amount would be dwarfed by the $1.6 billion fine that AIG agreed to pay in late 2005 to settle charges that it had intentionally misrepresented its own accounting records Among many other allega‑

tions, AIG had reportedly recorded bogus sales

of insurance policies to inflate its earnings and understated its loss reserves In addition to the huge fine, Hank Greenberg was forced to resign

as AIG’s chief executive as a result of the mas‑

sive accounting fraud.6

AIG was front and center in news head‑

lines once more in late 2008 when the largest

5 Los Angeles Times (online), “Ernst & Young in SEC Probe of PNC’s Books,” 8 December 2004.

6 In August 2009, Greenberg agreed to pay a $15 million fine to settle civil fraud charges filed against him by the SEC The settlement also prohibited Greenberg from serving as an officer of a public company for three years

304 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

economic crisis, since the Great Depression, erupted in the United States and quickly spread around the globe In September 2008, the fed‑

eral government seized control of AIG to prevent the company from collapsing The company had such an extensive role in global credit and insurance markets that financial experts main‑

tained that its collapse would cause a worldwide

economic calamity In exchange for approxi‑

mately $85 billion of capital, the federal govern‑

ment received an 80 percent equity interest in the company In the following months, tens of billions of dollars of additional federal “bailout”

money was invested in AIG to keep the company afloat AIG would ultimately receive more fed‑

eral bailout funds than any other U.S company

Questions

1 Is it ethical for a CPA or CPA firm to help companies “manage” their reported earnings and financial condition? In responding to this question, first assume that the CPA or CPA firm is serving as a consultant, and then assume that the CPA or CPA firm is serving as the given entity’s independent auditor Defend your answers

2 When a dispute arises between an audit client and its auditor regarding the proper accounting treatment for a transaction or other item, the audit client will

sometimes retain another accounting firm to issue a SAS No 50 report on the

proper accounting treatment for the given item Identify the potential ethical

dilemmas that may result from allowing accounting firms to issue SAS No 50

reports to non‑audit clients

CASE 5.3

The North face, Inc

Executives of The North face, Inc., faced a troubling dilemma during the 1990s.1 for decades, those executives had struggled to develop and maintain an exclusive brand name for their company’s extensive line of outdoor apparel and sporting equipment products By positioning those products for the “high‑end” segment of the retail mar‑

ket, North face’s management had consciously chosen to ignore the much larger and more lucrative mainstream market This decision kept the company’s primary customers happy Those customers, principally small, independent specialty sporting goods stores, did not want North face to market its merchandise to major discount retailers such as Wal‑Mart and Costco

Economic realities eventually forced North face’s executives to begin selling the company’s products to the mainstream market via backdoor marketing channels

Unfortunately, the company’s relatively high‑priced merchandise did not compete ef‑

fectively with the mass‑market brands sold by the major discount retailers Making matters worse, as the company’s merchandise began appearing on the shelves of discount retailers, those products quickly lost their exclusive brand name appeal, which caused North face’s sales to its principal customers to drop sharply

North face’s change in marketing strategies, the company’s decision to spend mil‑

lions of dollars to relocate its headquarters from northern California to Colorado, and

other gaffes by its management team caused Chief Executive magazine to include

North face among the nation’s five “worst‑managed” corporations A short time later, North face’s public image and reputation on Wall Street would be damaged even more by public revelations that the company’s reported operating results had been embellished with various accounting and marketing gimmicks

Adventurers, inc

Hap Klopp founded North face in the mid‑1960s to provide a ready source of hik‑

ing and camping gear that he and his many free‑spirited friends and acquaintances needed to pursue their “back to nature” quest Initially, the business operated from a small retail store in San francisco’s North Beach neighborhood The company quickly added a mail‑order sales operation In 1970, North face began designing and manu‑

facturing its own line of products after opening a small factory in nearby Berkeley

Over the next decade, North face endeared itself to outdoor enthusiasts by spon‑

soring mountain‑climbing expeditions across the globe, including successful at‑

tempts to scale Mount Everest, Mount McKinley, China’s K‑2, and the highest peaks in South America The name recognition and goodwill generated by these expeditions allowed North face to establish itself as the premier supplier of top‑quality parkas, tents, backpacking gear, and other apparel and equipment demanded by “profes‑

sional” mountain climbers Adding even more credibility to North face’s merchan‑

dise was the lifetime warranty that Hal Klopp attached to each item his company sold and the fact that the United States Marine Corps purchased tents and other biv‑

ouac supplies from North face

1 The development of this case was funded by Glen McLaughlin I would like to thank Mr McLaughlin for his generous and continuing support of efforts to integrate ethics into business curricula

306 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

North face’s sterling reputation for rugged and durable hiking, camping, and mountaineering gear prompted company management to begin marketing related lines of apparel and sporting equipment for skiers, whitewater daredevils, and other outdoor types Among the most popular items marketed by the company were its Mountain Jacket, Snow Leopard Backpack, and Tadpole Tent The company’s ex‑

panding product line triggered rapid sales growth during the 1970s and 1980s Simi‑

lar to the management teams of many growth companies, North face’s executives confronted several imposing challenges that could undermine their company’s finan‑

cial success The most critical of those challenges was maintaining quality control in North face’s cramped production facilities

Company executives prided themselves on producing only the highest quality out‑

door sporting equipment and apparel To maintain the quality of that merchandise, they insisted on manufacturing all of North face’s products in‑house, rather than out‑

sourcing some of the company’s manufacturing operations to third parties By the mid‑1980s, North face’s overburdened manufacturing facilities could not satisfy the steadily growing demand for the company’s merchandise or maintain the high‑quality production standards established by management North face’s limited production capacity and mounting quality control problems caused the company to routinely de‑

liver merchandise to retail stores after the peak selling seasons for its highly seasonal products The quality control problems also caused North face to accumulate a large inventory of “seconds,” that is, merchandise items having minor flaws

In the late 1980s, North face’s management made a decision it would soon regret

The company opened several outlet stores to dispose of obsolete and second‑grade merchandise This decision angered the specialty sporting goods stores that had been North face’s primary customers since the company’s inception To pacify those customers, North face did a quick about‑face and closed the outlet stores

Over the next several years, North face continued to struggle with maintaining its image as the leading producer of high‑quality outdoor apparel and sporting equip‑

ment, while at the same attempting to gradually ease into the mainstream retail mar‑

ket By this time, Hap Klopp had left the company to become an author–one of his

books was entitled The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Business Management In fact, the

company experienced several changes in company management and ownership during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s

In July 1996, a new management team took North face public, listing the com‑

pany’s common stock on the NASDAQ exchange Sold initially at $14 per share, the company’s stock price peaked at nearly $30 per share in february 1998, fueled by the company’s steadily increasing sales and profits In fiscal 1994, North face reported total sales of $89 million; four years later in fiscal 1998, the company’s sales had nearly tripled, rising to approximately $250 million

Despite the company’s strong operating results, by early 1999 North face’s stock price had plunged from its all‑time high Persistent rumors that North face’s manage‑

ment had enhanced the company’s reported revenues and profits by “channel stuffing”

and other questionable, if not illegal, practices caused the sharp decline in the stock price To squelch those rumors, North face’s board of directors attempted to purchase the company in a leveraged buyout underwritten by a large investment banking firm

That effort failed in March 1999 when NASDAQ officials halted public trading of North face’s stock following an announcement that the company would be restating its previ‑

ously reported operating results due to certain “bad bookkeeping.”2

2 D Blount, “Shares of Colorado‑Based Outdoor Clothing Maker Slump,” Denver Post (online), 11 May

1999.

cASe 5.3 t hE n oRth f acE , i nc 307

In May 1999, North face officials publicly revealed that their company’s audited fi‑

nancial statements for 1997 and the company’s pre‑audited operating results for 1998, which had been released in January 1999, had been distorted by fraudulent account‑

ing schemes The principal schemes involved violations of the revenue recognition principle for 1997, North face’s reported revenues of $208.4 million had been over‑

stated by approximately $5 million, while the company’s net income of $11.2 million had been overstated by $3.2 million In January 1999, the company had reported unaudited revenue and net income of $263.3 million and $9.5 million, respectively, for fiscal 1998 The company’s actual 1998 revenues were $247.1 million, while the company’s actual net income for the year was $3.6 million

Bartering for Success at north Face

The management team that took over North face in the mid‑1990s established a goal

of reaching annual sales of $1 billion by 2003 Many Wall Street analysts believed North face could reach that goal, given the company’s impressive operating results over the previous several years When the actual revenues and profits of North face failed to meet management’s expectations, the company’s chief financial officer (CfO) and vice president of sales took matters into their own hands, literally

In December 1997, North face began negotiating a large transaction with a barter company Under the terms of this transaction, the barter company would purchase

$7.8 million of excess inventory North face had on hand near the end of fiscal 1997

In exchange for that inventory, North face would receive $7.8 million of trade cred‑

its that were redeemable only through the barter company Historically, companies have used such trade credits to purchase advertising or travel services

Before North face finalized the large barter transaction, Christopher Crawford, the company’s chief financial officer (CfO), asked North face’s independent auditors how to account for the transaction The auditors referred Crawford to the appropri‑

ate authoritative literature for nonmonetary exchanges That literature generally pre‑

cludes companies from recognizing revenue on barter transactions when the only consideration received by the seller is trade credits To circumvent the authoritative literature, Crawford restructured the transaction The final agreement with the barter company included an oral “side agreement” that was concealed from North face’s independent auditors

Crawford, however, structured the transaction to recognize a profit on the trade credits

First, he required the barter company to pay a portion of the trade credits in cash

Crawford agreed that The North Face would guarantee that the barter company would receive at least 60 percent recovery of the total purchase price when it resold the product

In exchange for the guarantee, the barter company agreed to pay approximately

50 percent of the total purchase price in cash and the rest in trade credits This guarantee took the form of an oral side agreement that was not disclosed to the auditors.3

To further obscure the true nature of the large barter transaction, Crawford split it into two parts On December 29, 1997, two days before the end of North face’s fiscal

1997 fourth quarter, Crawford recorded a $5.15 million sale to the barter company

for this portion of the barter deal, North face received $3.51 million in cash and trade credits of $1.64 million Ten days later, during North face’s first quarter of fiscal

1998, the company’s accounting staff booked the remaining $2.65 million portion of

3 U.S District Court, Northern District of California, Securities and Exchange Commission v Christopher

F Crawford and Todd F Katz, february 2003

308 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

the barter transaction North face received only trade credits from the barter com‑

pany for this final portion of the $7.8 million transaction North face recognized its normal profit margin on each segment of the barter transaction

Crawford, who was a CPA, realized that Deloitte & Touche, North face’s auditors, would not challenge the $3.51 million portion of the barter transaction recorded dur‑

ing the fourth quarter of fiscal 1997 There was no reason for the auditors to chal‑

lenge that component of the transaction since North face was being paid in cash

Crawford also realized that Deloitte would disagree with the company’s decision

to recognize revenue for the $1.64 million component of the barter transaction for which North face would be paid exclusively in trade credits However, Crawford was aware of the materiality thresholds that Deloitte had established for North face’s key financial statement items during the fiscal 1997 audit He knew that the gross profit of approximately $800,000 on the $1.64 million component of the barter transaction fell slightly below Deloitte’s materiality threshold for North face’s collective gross profit

As a result, he believed that Deloitte would propose an adjustment to reverse the

$1.64 million item but ultimately “pass” on that proposed adjustment since it had an immaterial impact on North face’s financial statements In fact, that is exactly what Deloitte did

In early January 1998, North face recorded the remaining $2.65 million portion of the $7.8 million barter transaction Again, Crawford instructed North face’s accoun‑

tants to record the full amount of profit margin on this “sale” despite being aware that accounting treatment was not consistent with the authoritative literature Crawford did not inform the Deloitte auditors of the $2.65 million portion of the barter transac‑

tion until after the 1997 audit was completed

The barter company ultimately sold only a nominal amount of the $7.8 million of excess inventory that it purchased from North face As a result, in early 1999, North face reacquired that inventory from the barter company

In the third and fourth quarters of fiscal 1998, Todd Katz, North face’s vice presi‑

dent of sales, arranged two large sales to inflate the company’s revenues, transac‑

tions that were actually consignments rather than consummated sales The first of these transactions involved $9.3 million of merchandise “sold” to a small apparel wholesaler in Texas During the previous year, this wholesaler had purchased only

$90,000 of merchandise from North face The terms of this transaction allowed the wholesaler to return any of the merchandise that he did not resell and required North face to pay all of the storage and handling costs for that merchandise In fact, North face arranged to have the large amount of merchandise stored in a warehouse near the wholesaler’s business Katz negotiated a similar $2.6 million transaction with a small California wholesaler a few months later

During a subsequent internal investigation, North face’s audit committee ques‑

tioned the validity of the large transaction with the Texas wholesaler North face paid for the Texas customer to fly to North face’s new corporate headquarters in Aspen, Colorado, to discuss that transaction with members of the audit committee and the company’s CEO, who were not aware of the true nature of the transaction

The night before the customer met with North face officials, Katz went to his hotel room and had him sign a fake purchase order for the $9.3 million transaction–a purchase order had not been prepared for the bogus sale when it was originally ar‑

ranged by Katz

Several months later, Katz instructed a North face sales representative to ask the Texas customer to sign an audit confirmation letter sent to him by Deloitte By signing that letter, the customer falsely confirmed that he owned the $9.3 million of merchan‑

dise as of December 31, 1998, North face’s fiscal year‑end The California wholesaler

cASe 5.3 t hE n oRth f acE , i nc 309

involved in the bogus $2.6 million sale signed a similar confirmation after having been asked to do so by a North face sales representative In May 1999, following the completion of North face’s 1998 audit, the Texas customer returned the $9.3 million

of merchandise that he had supposedly purchased from North face

erasing the Past

Richard fiedelman served for several years as the Deloitte “advisory” partner as‑

signed to the North face audit engagements Within Deloitte, an advisory partner

is typically a senior audit partner who has significant industry expertise relevant to

a given audit client fiedelman was the advisory partner on the North face engage‑

ment team because he was in charge of Deloitte’s “consumer retail group” in the firm’s northern California market area In addition to consulting with members of an audit engagement team on important issues arising during an audit, an advisory part‑

ner typically reviews the audit workpapers before the engagement is completed.4

Pete Vanstraten was the audit engagement partner for the 1997 North face audit.5

Vanstraten proposed the adjusting entry near the end of the 1997 audit to reverse the $1.64 million barter transaction that North face had booked in the final few days

of fiscal 1997 Vanstraten proposed that adjustment because he was aware that the authoritative literature generally precludes companies from recognizing revenue on barter transactions when the only consideration received by the seller is trade credits

Vanstraten was also the individual who “passed” on that adjustment after determin‑

ing that it did not have a material impact on North face’s 1997 financial statements

Richard fiedelman reviewed and approved those decisions by Vanstraten

Shortly after the completion of the 1997 North face audit, Pete Vanstraten was transferred from the office that serviced North face In May 1998, Will Borden was appointed the new audit engagement partner for North face.6 In the two months before Borden was appointed the North face audit engagement partner, Richard fiedelman functioned in that role

fiedelman supervised the review of North face’s financial statements for the first quarter of fiscal 1998, which ended on March 31, 1998 While completing that re‑

view, fiedelman became aware of the $2.65 million portion of the $7.8 million barter transaction that Christopher Crawford had instructed his subordinates to record in early January 1998 Recall that North face received only trade credits from the barter company for this final portion of the large barter transaction Despite being familiar with the authoritative literature regarding the proper accounting treatment for barter transactions involving trade credits, fiedelman did not challenge North face’s deci‑

sion to record its normal profit margin on the January 1998 “sale” to the barter com‑

pany As a result, North face’s gross profit for the first quarter of 1998 was overstated

by more than $1.3 million, an amount that was material to the company’s first‑quarter financial statements In fact, without the profit margin on the $2.65 million transac‑

tion, North face would have reported a net loss for the first quarter of fiscal 1998 rather than the modest net income it actually reported that period

In the fall of 1998, Will Borden began planning the 1998 North face audit An im‑

portant element of that planning process was reviewing the 1997 audit workpapers

4 The information regarding the nature and role of a Deloitte advisory partner was obtained from a senior audit manager with that firm.

5 “Pete Vanstraten” is a fictitious name assigned to the 1997 North face audit engagement partner The SEC enforcement releases issued in this case and other available sources did not identify that partner’s actual name.

6 “Will Borden” is also a fictitious name.

310 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

While reviewing those workpapers, Borden discovered the audit adjustment that Pete Vanstraten had proposed during the prior‑year audit to reverse the $1.64 million barter transaction When Borden brought this matter to fiedelman’s attention, fiedel‑

man maintained that the proposed audit adjustment should not have been included

in the prior‑ year workpapers since the 1997 audit team had not concluded that North face should not record the $1.64 million transaction with the barter company fiedel‑

man insisted that, despite the proposed audit adjustment in the 1997 audit workpa‑

pers, Pete Vanstraten had concluded that it was permissible for North face to record the transaction and recognize the $800,000 of profit margin on the transaction in December 1997

fiedelman could not offer any viable explanation to Borden as to why the 1997 workpapers included the proposed audit adjustment for the $1.64 million transaction

Borden could have easily addressed that issue by simply contacting Vanstraten;

however, he apparently chose not to do so Nor did he refer to the authoritative literature to determine whether North face was entitled to record that transaction

Instead, Borden simply accepted fiedelman’s assertion that North face was entitled

to recognize profit on a sales transaction in which the only consideration received

by the company was trade credits Borden also relied on this assertion during the

1998 audit As a result, Borden and the other members of the 1998 audit team did not propose an adjusting entry to require North face to reverse the $2.65 million sale recorded by the company in January 1998

After convincing Borden that the prior‑year workpapers misrepresented the de‑

cision that Pete Vanstraten had made regarding the $1.64 million barter transac‑

tion, fiedelman “began the process of documenting this revised conclusion in the

1997 working papers.”7 According to a subsequent investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Deloitte personnel “prepared a new summary memorandum and adjustments schedule reflecting the revised conclusion about profit recognition, and replaced the original 1997 working papers with these newly‑

created working papers.” The Deloitte personnel who revised the 1997 workpapers did not document the revisions in those workpapers “In the end, the 1997 working papers, as revised, did not indicate that the 1997 audit team had originally reached

a different conclusion concerning the company’s accounting for the 1997 barter transaction.”

The SEC requires that a partner not assigned to an engagement team review the audit workpapers for an SEC registrant The Deloitte “concurring” partner who reviewed the 1998 workpapers questioned Will Borden’s decision to allow North face to recognize revenue on a sales transaction for which it had been paid exclu‑

sively in trade credits The partner then referred to the prior‑year workpapers and discovered that the workpapers pertaining to the December 1997 transaction with the barter company had been altered

Because of concerns raised by the concurring partner, Deloitte investigated the

1997 and 1998 North face transactions with the barter company The concurring partner’s concerns also prompted North face’s audit committee to retain a second accounting firm to investigate the company’s 1997 and 1998 accounting records

These investigations ultimately revealed the true nature of the transactions with the barter company, including the previously undisclosed “side agreement” that Christopher Crawford had made with officials of that company The investigations

7 This and all remaining quotes in this case were taken from the following source: Securities and

Exchange Commission, Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No 1884, 1 October 2003, 2

cASe 5.3 t hE n oRth f acE , i nc 311

also led to the discovery of the two bogus consignment sales that Crawford had ar‑

ranged during 1998

E p i l o g u EThe SEC sanctioned Richard fiedelman for

failing to document the changes that his sub‑

ordinates had made in the 1997 North face workpapers In commenting on the North face case, the federal agency stressed the important function of audit workpapers and the need for

any ex post changes in those workpapers to be

clearly and fully documented

The auditor’s working papers provide the principal support for the auditor’s report, in- cluding his representation regarding the ob- servance of the standards of field work, which

is implicit in the reference in his report to erally accepted auditing standards It therefore follows that any addition, deletion, or modifi- cation to the working papers after they had been finalized in connection with the com- pletion of the audit may be made only with appropriate supplemental documentation, in- cluding an explanation of the justification for the addition, deletion, or modification.

gen-The SEC also criticized fiedelman for failing

to exercise due professional care while review‑

ing North face’s financial statements for the first quarter of 1998 According to the SEC, fiedel‑

man allowed North face to record the January

1998 barter transaction “directly contrary to the conclusion reached by Deloitte in its 1997 year‑

end audit.” In October 2003, the SEC imposed a three‑year suspension on fiedelman prevented

him from being involved in the audits of SEC clients

In febr uar y 2003, the SEC suspended Christopher Crawford for five years, which pro‑

hibited him from serving as an officer or direc‑

tor of a public company or being associated with any financial statements filed with the fed‑

eral agency over that time frame The SEC also fined Crawford $30,000 and required him to dis‑

gorge approximately $30,000 of trading profits

he had earned on the sale of North face stock

The SEC also denied Todd Katz, the former vice president of sales who had helped Crawford manipulate North face’s reported operating results, the privilege of serving as an officer of

a public company for five years and fined him

$40,000 The two former North face customers involved in the bogus consignment sales ar‑

ranged by Katz were reprimanded by the SEC

In May 2000, Vf Corporation, the world’s larg‑

est apparel company, more commonly known

as Vanity fair, made North face a wholly owned subsidiary by purchasing the company’s outstanding common stock for $2 per share Vf immediately installed a new management team

to take over North face’s operations Under the leadership of that new management team, North face quickly returned to profitability and rees‑

tablished itself as one of the nation’s premier suppliers of outdoor equipment and apparel

Questions

1 Should auditors insist that their clients accept all proposed audit adjustments, even those that have an “immaterial” effect on the given financial statements?

Defend your answer

2 Should auditors take explicit measures to prevent their clients from discovering

or becoming aware of the materiality thresholds used on individual audit engagements? Would it be feasible for auditors to conceal this information from their audit clients?

312 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

3 Identify the general principles or guidelines that dictate when companies are entitled to record revenue How were these principles or guidelines violated by the $7.8 million barter transaction and the two consignment sales discussed in this case?

4 Identify and briefly explain each of the principal objectives that auditors hope

to accomplish by preparing audit workpapers How were these objectives undermined by Deloitte’s decision to alter North face’s 1997 workpapers?

5 North face’s management teams were criticized for strategic blunders that they made over the course of the company’s history Do auditors have a responsibility

to assess the quality of the key decisions made by client executives? Defend your answer

CASE 5.4

Waverly Holland, Audit Senior

Waverly Edward Holland, III, grew up in sunny Tucson, Arizona, but his heart was al‑

ways in the mountains of Colorado from the age of three, “Dutch” spent at least one week each winter at Aspen, Breckenridge, Vail, or some other Colorado ski resort with his family He loved the weather and the quaint atmosphere of the small moun‑

tain resort towns, but mostly he loved to ski By the age of 16, Dutch had decided that

he would pursue a career that would allow him the opportunity to indulge the sport that he loved Thanks to his pragmatic parents and a thoughtful high school coun‑

selor, Dutch’s career objective eventually evolved from being a “ski bum” to becom‑

ing involved in the management of a ski resort.1

During his annual ski excursions while in high school, Dutch discussed his career goal with several management personnel at major ski resorts With those individuals’

help, Dutch developed a master plan for accomplishing that goal Since one of the ski resort managers he interviewed had convinced him that a thorough knowledge

of accounting would be extremely helpful in managing any business, including a ski resort, Dutch decided to major in accounting at the University of Arizona Making that decision even easier was the fact that occupational aptitude tests he took in high school indicated he was well suited for accounting

Dutch planned to take a one‑semester “sabbatical” during his undergraduate pro‑

gram to work as an intern or “gopher” at a ski resort After completing his accounting degree, Dutch would work for a few years in the accounting profession before return‑

ing to college to earn an MBA specializing in resort or hotel management With that background, Dutch believed that he could obtain a management trainee position with a major ski resort

“class-action” Headache

By the age of 26, Dutch was well on his way to completing his master plan After earn‑

ing an undergraduate degree in accounting at the U of A, Dutch accepted a staff audi‑

tor position with a major accounting firm Dutch chose auditing because he believed

it would give him a thorough understanding of “real world” accounting and internal control issues that he would need as a future business manager During his third year

in public accounting, Dutch took the GMAT exam and applied to several universities that had MBA programs tailored to his specific career interest After being admitted

to the program that was his top choice, Dutch gave his employer notice that he would

be leaving the firm a few months later

Midway through his first semester of graduate school, Dutch was elated when he learned that he had been accepted for a management internship program at a large ski resort he had visited several times in the past Dutch realized that he would likely

be offered a full‑time job with the resort when he finished the three‑month internship program the following summer That full‑time position would begin when he com‑

pleted his MBA degree the following spring

1 The key facts presented in this case were provided by a former public accountant who is now an ac‑

counting professor Dates, locations, and other background information have been changed to conceal the identities of the individuals and entities involved in the case

314 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

We have all known individuals who seem to lead charmed existences in which their lives unfold as they have scripted them Dutch Holland was one of those individuals

But Dutch’s charmed life suddenly became more complex and less predictable a few months after he left public accounting One late November afternoon Dutch’s phone rang while he was studying in his apartment The caller identified himself as Robert Chope, an attorney for a law firm in a nearby metropolitan area Chope told Dutch that his firm was representing the plaintiffs in a class‑action securities lawsuit to be filed

in a matter of days against Padova & Vicenza, a large public company involved in the apparel industry The lawsuit would allege that Padova & Vicenza had intentionally and materially misrepresented its financial condition and operating results over the past three years Dutch was well aware of Padova & Vicenza since the manufacturing company was one of the largest audit clients of his former employer In fact, Dutch had spent three years assigned to the audit engagement team for Padova & Vicenza

The final year, Dutch had served as the principal audit senior on that team

When Chope used the phrase “class‑action,” Dutch winced in pain Among the greatest fears of an auditor is for a client or former client to be the target of a class‑

action lawsuit predicated on material financial statement misrepresentations If the company’s audit firm is named as a co‑defendant in such a lawsuit, the audits of that client will be subjected to painstaking scrutiny by both plaintiff and defense attorneys

Dutch had enjoyed the three years that he spent in public accounting Unlike many

of his college friends who had accepted entry‑level positions in other fields follow‑

ing graduation, Dutch had seldom been bored as an auditor He had found the wide range of businesses, accounting and control systems, and technical issues that he had been exposed to stimulating and rewarding Granted, on many occasions he had felt as if he was “in over his head” given the challenging assignments that his firm continually gave him He had subdued those brief anxiety attacks with the real‑

ization that his firm had an impressive support network that included both extensive technical resources and helpful, sympathetic, and encouraging colleagues and su‑

periors Dutch had enjoyed the challenges and camaraderie of public accounting so much that he had briefly reconsidered his planned career path as he neared comple‑

tion of his three‑year stint as an auditor But the lure of Colorado’s ski trails had pre‑

vailed and kept him from extending his time in public accounting

The only major downside of public accounting, at least in Dutch’s mind, had been the ever‑present fear of “screwing up” by overlooking material errors in a client’s fi‑

nancial statements That concern had loomed over every audit to which Dutch had been assigned In looking back on his three years in public accounting, Padova &

Vicenza was the only former client that Dutch had some lingering questions regard‑

ing the material accuracy or fairness of its periodic financial statements Those linger‑

ing questions immediately flooded back into Dutch’s mind that November afternoon when Robert Chope mentioned the lawsuit to be filed against Padova & Vicenza

During the three years that Dutch had served on the Padova & Vicenza audit engage‑

ment team, the company had been in chronically poor financial condition for more than a decade, the company’s operating results had been deteriorating in the face of stiff competition from foreign companies Those foreign competitors had a lower cost struc‑

ture than Padova & Vicenza due to the considerably lower wages they paid to their non‑

union workers–each of Padova & Vicenza’s four production facilities was unionized

As Padova & Vicenza’s profitability and liquidity steadily worsened each year, the company had made increasingly aggressive accounting decisions Among other ac‑

counts, those decisions had affected the company’s allowances for bad debts and inventory obsolescence and discretionary year‑end expense accruals In Dutch’s fi‑

nal year on the Padova & Vicenza engagement, management had also made several

cASe 5.4 W avERly h olland , a udit s EnioR 315

dubious operating decisions to improve the company’s apparent financial condition

Management had slashed the company’s advertising and promotional budget, laid off dozens of salaried employees including two‑thirds of the internal audit staff, and deferred periodic maintenance expenditures on production line equipment The questionable accounting and operating decisions had been necessary because the company was dangerously close to violating several long‑term debt covenants tied

to key financial measures If Padova & Vicenza had violated those debt covenants, the long‑term debt would have become immediately due and payable, which would have forced the company to either obtain waivers of those covenants from its lenders

or file for bankruptcy

Dutch had spent his final few months in public accounting supervising the field work on the Padova & Vicenza audit–the company had a June 30 fiscal year‑end and Dutch had completed his work on that audit the weekend before he began his MBA program in early September During the nearly three months that had elapsed since completing that engagement, Dutch had not spoken to any of his former colleagues who had been assigned to the audit So, the information that Robert Chope relayed

to him during their phone conversation was the first update he had received regard‑

ing Padova & Vicenza’s financial health since completing that audit

Chope told Dutch that Padova & Vicenza would issue a press release within one week that would recall the company’s audited financial statements for the past three years According to Chope, management planned to announce that those financial statements would be restated due to several material but allegedly inadvertent mis‑

statements When Dutch asked which specific accounts had been misstated, Chope had refused to provide any additional details By this point in the conversation, Dutch had gone from feeling stressed to feeling physically sick He realized that if there were material errors in Padova & Vicenza’s financial statements, he had probably signed off on workpapers relevant to the accounts affected by those errors

the “Go-to-Guy”

Near the end of their conversation, Chope finally told Dutch why he had called

Chope wanted to meet with Dutch and discuss several “unresolved issues” that he and his team of subordinates hoped to clarify before filing the class‑action lawsuit on behalf of Padova & Vicenza’s stockholders and former stockholders Chope believed that Dutch could quickly explain those issues given the “in‑depth knowledge” of the company he had acquired while auditing it for three years

The fact that Chope knew exactly how long Dutch had worked on the Padova &

Vicenza engagement was troubling to him He wondered what else the articulate and self‑assured attorney knew of his involvement in those audits Dutch was aware that

it was highly unlikely Chope’s firm had copies of all the Padova & Vicenza workpa‑

pers since his former employer would not turn over those workpapers to a third party unless ordered to do so by a court

Dutch could not overcome the temptation to ask Chope if his former employer would be named as a defendant in the lawsuit The attorney’s reply, “Not at the present time,” was less than reassuring to Dutch According to Chope, the principal defendants in the lawsuit would be the company itself, three senior company exec‑

utives–the chief executive officer, the chief operating officer, and the chief financial officer, and several current and former board members

Dutch reluctantly asked one final question of Chope, a question for which he

already knew the answer “Why did you call me? A lot of other people worked on

that audit.”

316 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

“Waverly, you can understand that your former colleagues are not willing to speak to us.”

Dutch hated to be called “Waverly,” but even more so he hated to be tabbed as the “go‑to‑guy” in a major class‑action lawsuit With the exception of the tough final exams that he faced over the next two weeks, his life was perfect He had no interest whatsoever in rehashing the details of the Padova & Vicenza audits, especially with

a team of attorneys whose intentions were at best unclear He simply wanted to be left alone In his mind, he had no responsibility to become involved in the pending lawsuit–on either side He had completed all of the procedures that he had been assigned on the Padova & Vicenza audits to the best of his ability That was what had been expected of him and that was exactly what he had done

When Dutch failed to respond to Chope’s previous statement, the attorney contin‑

ued, “We will be more than happy to meet you at a time and place that is most conve‑

nient with you Can we arrange that meeting now?”

Upset and flustered, Dutch responded with a stammering reply “Well, uh, you see,

I I’m really busy right now I’m in the middle of a couple of big projects and then

I have final exams coming up You know, I would like to help you, but I I just don’t have the time.” Notwithstanding the white lie that he had slipped in, Dutch was pleased with his off‑the‑cuff, under‑pressure response But he wasn’t pleased with Chope’s comeback

“I understand your hesitance to meet with us But you should understand that you will have to meet with us sooner or later It would be much better for you to meet with us now If you cooperate with us, we assure you that you have nothing to worry about from us.”

Suddenly, Dutch felt very lonely and extremely apprehensive He felt as if he was trying to hold off a man‑eating tiger with a paper sword Chope was not going to ac‑

cept a wishy‑washy response Before he could muster the courage and brainpower to construct a more substantive reply, Chope spoke once more

“Mr Holland, you have my word If you cooperate with us now, we will never name you as a defendant in the lawsuit that we are going to file.”

Chope’s pledge was both frightening and heartening to Dutch There was no lon‑

ger any need to wonder if he might be named in the lawsuit He was certain that he would be named if he didn’t, at a minimum, agree to meet with Chope

Without giving any more thought to the matter, Dutch heard the words “okay, I will meet you” come out of his mouth

“With Friends Like these ”

The telephone conversation between Dutch and Robert Chope occurred on a Thursday afternoon Dutch had agreed to meet with Chope the following Monday afternoon By Sunday evening, Dutch was having second thoughts regarding that de‑

cision finally, he came up with what seemed to be a great idea He would call Clay‑

ton Morris, an audit partner with his former employer, and ask for his advice

Morris had served as the audit engagement partner for each of the three Padova &

Vicenza audits to which Dutch had been assigned Although Dutch did not have a close relationship with Morris, he trusted the partner’s judgment Morris was well re‑

spected within the practice office in which Dutch had worked He was a young part‑

ner with a brash, outgoing personality who was the office’s principal “rainmaker”–he brought in more new clients than any other partner in the office

Before Dutch could finish relaying all of the details of his conversation with Robert Chope to Clayton Morris, the partner cut him off

“The nerve of that guy! Calling you out of the blue Who does he think he is?”

cASe 5.4 W avERly h olland , a udit s EnioR 317

The tone of Morris’s interjection made Dutch hesitant to proceed He realized now that Morris would almost certainly be upset that he had agreed to meet with Chope

When Dutch failed to continue, Morris prodded him, “Go ahead, Dutch Tell me how you told this guy off.”

“Well actually actually, I didn’t know what to tell him.” Dutch paused once more to muster the strength to blurt out the words that he didn’t want to say and that Morris certainly didn’t want to hear “So, I told him that I would meet with him To‑

morrow At 5:00 p.m In my apartment.”

for several awkward moments, the other end of the line was silent But, in his mind’s eye, Dutch could picture Morris sitting there dazed and dumbfounded and becoming angrier with each passing moment finally, Morris spoke

“You did what?”

“Well, I didn’t know what to he was just so persistent, that I–”

“You agreed to meet with him? Are you out of your mind?”

“Clayton, I didn’t know what to do I’ve never been in a situation like that.” Dutch wasn’t angry but he was indignant by this point The change in his tone prompted a change in Morris’s tone as well

“Dutch I understand Those plaintiff attorneys are shock jocks They can put you on the spot and keep applying the pressure But now listen to me Listen to me closely I want you to call this guy back and tell him that you are not going to meet with him.” Morris paused, expecting Dutch to respond When Dutch didn’t, Morris continued “When he starts applying the pressure, just tell him courteously that he is

to call T.J Gillette in our headquarters office Gillette is one of our best in‑house attor‑

neys He will deal with this guy I promise you that you won’t hear from him again.”

“How do you know that he won’t contact me again? How do you know that he won’t include me as a defendant in the lawsuit?”

“Come on Dutch, he was just trying to bluff you into cooperating Let’s get real here

There’s no doubt that we [Dutch’s former employer] will be named as a defendant eventually We’re the ones with the deep pockets Will they name you? Of course not

You know whose name will be in the spotlight Mine, not yours They don’t go after the staff or seniors or managers in these cases It’s only the partners that they’re inter‑

ested in They want to talk to you because they hope to squeeze information out of you that they might be able to use in building a case against the firm and me.”

By this point, Dutch felt some sense of relief He now had a more complete under‑

standing of the circumstances he faced

“Okay, Clayton I will call him I guess I will tell him that I won’t meet with him to‑

morrow.” Dutch had used the term “guess” loosely In fact, he meant to convey that

he would definitely not meet with Chope Unfortunately, Morris didn’t read the same meaning into Dutch’s response

“You ‘guess’? You ‘guess’ that you won’t meet with him?” Morris’s tone was now de‑

risive and angry “Let me tell you this And, I am only going to say it once If you meet with Chope, we, and I mean myself and the entire firm, are going to expect you to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs You make that decision and we will go after you We will tie you up in depositions and interrogatories for the next two years I can guaran‑

tee you that you won’t be finishing that graduate degree any time soon.”

Morris’s response caused the normally good‑natured Dutch to become angry He had been bullied by Chope, but he certainly hadn’t expected Morris to treat him in the same manner Dutch realized that nothing would be gained by becoming in‑

volved in an angry exchange, so he abruptly ended the conversation by telling Mor‑

ris that he appreciated his input and then said a hasty “good‑bye.” A moment before

he hung up the phone, he heard Morris anxiously say, “Dutch, wait a minute.”

318 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

Decision time

The following morning, Dutch was awakened by a phone call The caller was T.J Gillette, the in‑house attorney for his former employer Gillette was civil but his message was the same as Morris’s: Don’t even consider cooperating with the plain‑

tiff attorneys in the Padova & Vicenza case Surprisingly to Dutch, Gillette did not ask him whether he still intended to meet with Chope later that day Gillette ended the brief conversation with a terse “Good luck young man” before hanging up the phone

for the next several minutes, Dutch sat on the side of his bed wondering what

he should do Should he call Robert Chope and cancel their five o’clock meeting?

Should he call Clayton Morris once more? finally, Dutch got up slowly from the bed and trudged to the kitchen to make his morning cup of coffee

Questions

1 How do you believe that Dutch Holland resolved the dilemma that he faced? Do you believe that he met with Robert Chope? Why or why not? Place yourself in Dutch’s position What would you have done? Explain

2 Identify the ethical issues that Dutch faced How should he have addressed or dealt with those issues?

3 Do you believe that Clayton Morris dealt appropriately with Dutch during their telephone conversation? Defend your answer

CASE 5.5

Phillips Petroleum Company

Bill Grant sat in the middle of a large jail cell with 12 other inmates as the long October night dragged on.1 To pass the time, Grant and several other inmates played cards and talked about their hopes of being reunited with their families The accom‑

modations of the Tulsa County Jail were not unlike those of most jails: dirty, no lid

on the toilet, and 12 beds for 13 inmates What made this scene unusual was not the less‑than‑glamorous, overcrowded condition of the jail cell, but rather the presence of Grant, a Big Eight audit partner and graduate of the Harvard Business School At the time, Grant served as the managing partner of the Tulsa office of Arthur Young & Com‑

pany, but he was destined to become Arthur Young’s co‑managing partner in 1988 shortly before that firm merged with Ernst & Whinney to form Ernst & Young

Earlier that day, Grant had appeared in a Tulsa federal courthouse at a hearing presided over by Judge Allan Barrow Judge Barrow had ordered Grant to produce certain audit workpapers that had been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury Those workpapers had been prepared during an audit of the large oil company, Phillips Petroleum Company, a client of Arthur Young’s Tulsa office When Grant respectfully denied the judge’s request, he was cited for civil contempt, handcuffed, and led away

to jail Apparently, the judge hoped that an overnight stay in a crowded jail cell would convince Grant to change his mind

The federal grand jury’s interest in the Arthur Young workpapers stemmed from

an ongoing investigation of Phillips That investigation focused on possible tax fraud related to a secret, multimillion‑dollar fund that Phillips’ executives had established

to make political contributions One contribution made from the secret fund, which was maintained in a Swiss bank account, was an illegal donation of $100,000 to what became known during the Watergate era as CREEP–the Committee to Reelect the President (Richard Nixon) Under the terms of an earlier plea bargain agreement with Watergate, special prosecutor Archibald Cox, Phillips’ chairman of the board, had admitted to the $100,000 contribution to Nixon’s 1972 reelection campaign and pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor.2 following that plea bargain agreement, a seven‑

count indictment was filed against Phillips that charged the company with filing false federal tax returns for failing to report interest revenue earned on the secret Swiss bank account

Prior to Bill Grant’s appearance before Judge Barrow, Arthur Young had turned over to the federal grand jury approximately 12,000 pages of Phillips’s audit workpa‑

pers Arthur Young, however, had refused to give the grand jury several workpapers relating to two key items: (1) certain tax accruals made by Phillips and (2) attorneys’

1 The facts of this case were drawn principally from the following articles: “Arthur Young Aide Cited

for Contempt and Jailed in Tulsa,” The Wall Street Journal, 8 October 1975, 10; f Andrews, “Arthur Young faces Test on Protecting Client Audit Secrets,” The Wall Street Journal, 14 October 1975, 23; “Arthur Young & Co Gives Grand Jury Data On Phillips Petroleum,” The Wall Street Journal, 15 October 1975, 28;

“Pleas by Phillips Petroleum filed On U.S Charges,” The Wall Street Journal, 23 November 1977, 2.

2 Phillips’s chairman also revealed that he had delivered $50,000 to Nixon in a New York City apartment during the 1968 presidential campaign in which Nixon eventually defeated Senator Hubert Humphrey.

320 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

letters that Arthur Young had obtained from Phillips’s law firms Among other top‑

ics, these attorneys’ letters were known to include discussions of “unasserted claims”

by Phillips’s attorneys The federal grand jury believed that both sets of workpapers might provide important insight on the allegations involving Phillips

Arthur Young had refused to provide the contested workpapers to the grand jury

on the grounds that they contained confidential information that, if disclosed, would

be potentially damaging to Phillips Tax accrual audit workpapers, for example, typi‑

cally contain an audit firm’s analysis of tax‑related decisions made by their clients

Access to such workpapers would make it much easier for the Internal Revenue Ser‑

vice (IRS) to “build a case” against a given company

Bill Grant was released from the Tulsa County Jail on October 7, 1975, but was ordered to make an appearance the following week before Judge Barrow If Grant again refused to produce the workpapers subpoenaed by the grand jury, he faced the risk of being cited for criminal contempt and receiving a 17‑month jail term

During the week between Grant’s two court appearances, Arthur Young’s attorneys worked out a compromise with Judge Barrow Under the terms of the agreement, Arthur Young turned over copies of the requested tax accrual workpapers All matters other than those specifically identified by the subpoena were masked in the copies

of the workpapers given to the grand jury Judge Barrow also granted Arthur Young the right to contest any subsequent court order to provide the original “unmasked”

tax accrual workpapers to the grand jury

Judge Barrow did not relent with respect to the contested attorneys’ letters He or‑

dered Arthur Young to provide copies of those letters to the grand jury Phillips filed a motion to appeal this order, but that appeal was denied

E p i l o g u EThe Watergate‑related problems of Phillips Pe‑

troleum continued to plague the company fol‑

lowing the resolution of the dispute involving the Arthur Young workpapers In early 1976, Phillips’s executives temporarily turned over control of the company to its outside directors

This decision was spurred by the filing of a large class‑action lawsuit against Phillips linked

to the charges of illegal campaign contribu‑

tions In November 1977, Phillips settled these charges by pleading guilty to engaging in a con‑

spiracy to make illegal campaign contributions,

pleading no contest to four related tax evasion charges, and paying a fine of $30,000

Ironically, Arthur Young’s tax accrual work‑

papers for another audit client, the large oil company Amerada Hess, became the focal point of another major litigation case The issue

in this case was whether the IRS had the right

to review copies of auditors’ tax accrual work‑

papers In 1984, the Supreme Court decided the case by unanimously ruling that the IRS has the right to review tax accrual workpapers pre‑

pared during an independent audit

cASe 5.5 p hillips p EtRolEum c ompany 321

3 What is the purpose of “attorneys’ letters” obtained during the course

of an audit? If attorneys are aware that these letters can be routinely subpoenaed, how does this fact likely affect the quality of the audit evidence yielded by these letters?

4 Do you believe the documentation included in tax accrual audit workpapers is likely affected by auditors’ knowledge that those workpapers can be obtained by the IRS? Explain

This page intentionally left blank

leagues go on to your next assignment Now, the bad news Several months later, you discover that the client’s financial statements contain a material error, an error not revealed by the audit What should you do at this point? What will you do? An audit manager with Touche Ross faced these difficult circumstances in 1986

In the mid‑1980s, Wisconsin‑based American fuel & Supply Company, Inc (AfS), was a wholesale distributor of automotive supplies, lawn and garden supplies, and related products.1 AfS purchased merchandise from several vendors One of the company’s largest suppliers was Chevron Chemical Company, a division of Chevron Corporation Products that AfS purchased from Chevron included insecticides and weedkillers bearing the Ortho brand label AfS’s president and sole shareholder di‑

rected the company’s day‑to‑day operations

AfS prepared comparative financial statements for its fiscal year ending December 31, 1985, which were accompanied by an unqualified audit opinion issued

by Touche Ross on february 28, 1986 The company distributed 100 copies of the financial statements, principally to creditors such as Chevron Chemical

Several months following the completion of the 1985 AfS audit, Touche Ross per‑

sonnel discovered that the company’s 1985 financial statements contained a material error AfS had billed certain of its customers twice for merchandise they had pur‑

chased This error caused the company’s 1985 revenues to be overstated by nearly

$1 million More important, the error had converted the net loss actually suffered by AfS that year to a reported net income Chevron Chemical and other creditors of AfS later testified that they relied on the erroneous financial statements in deciding to continue extending credit to the company

During August and September 1986, members of the AfS audit engagement team wrestled with the question of what they should do given the dilemma they faced

A central figure in these deliberations was James Wagner, the audit manager who had supervised the field work on the 1985 AfS audit In late August 1986, Wagner bluntly summarized the situation for his superiors: “There is a set of financial statements out being used by [AfS’s] vendors and lenders that has an error in it.”

Two weeks later, Wagner, a Touche Ross audit partner, and the accounting firm’s assistant legal counsel held a conference call to discuss the matter During this con‑

ference call, these individuals agreed on the course of action Touche Ross would take to resolve the matter

Unless AFS notified its creditors and vendors of the existence of the error in the cial statements, Touche would withdraw their opinion and give notice to its creditors

finan-1 The principal facts of this case and the quotations appearing within it were drawn from the follow‑

ing legal opinion: Chevron Chemical v Deloitte & Touche, 483 N.W 2d 314 (Wis App 1992).

324 Section FiVe E thical R EsponsibilitiEs of i ndEpEndEnt a uditoRs

and vendors whom they knew were relying upon the financial statements that their opinion had been withdrawn

following the conference call, Touche Ross representatives met with AfS officials and attempted to persuade them to recall the company’s 1985 financial statements

The AfS officials refused to do so Touche Ross then advised the client that it in‑

tended to withdraw its audit report on AfS’s 1985 financial statements and to inform all parties known to be relying on those financial statements that the audit report had been withdrawn

A few days later, Touche Ross personnel met again with AfS’s management The company’s legal counsel also attended this meeting AfS’s attorney insisted that Touche Ross would violate the confidentiality of its contractual relationship with AfS

by withdrawing its audit opinion and notifying third parties of that decision The cli‑

ent’s attorney then threatened legal action against Touche Ross if the accounting firm carried through on its planned course of action Eventually, AfS and Touche Ross hammered out a compromise This compromise permitted Touche Ross to notify AfS’s sole secured creditor (lender) that the firm’s audit opinion on AfS’s 1985 finan‑

cial statements had been withdrawn However, Touche Ross could not notify AfS’s unsecured creditors of its decision to withdraw the audit report These unsecured creditors included Chevron Chemical and AfS’s other suppliers

James Wagner believed the compromise was unacceptable In a confidential memo apparently intended for his superiors, Wagner maintained that Touche Ross had an obligation to the other parties relying on the audit opinion issued on AfS’s

1985 financial statements Wagner suggested that Touche Ross should “send a letter

to the vendors or creditors that we know have received the financial statements tell‑

ing them that the opinion should no longer be relied upon.”

E p i l o g u EAfS filed for bankruptcy in April 1987 The

company’s president filed for personal bank‑

ruptcy approximately two years later In early

1989, Chevron Chemical sued Touche Ross, alleging that the accounting firm negligently audited AfS’s 1985 financial statements Chev‑

ron Chemical also claimed that Touche Ross had a responsibility to notify it after learning

of the error in AfS’s 1985 financial statements

A Wisconsin state court rejected the allega‑

tion that Touche Ross negligently audited AfS

in 1985 However, the court ruled, and a Wis‑

consin state appellate court later agreed, that Touche Ross “was negligent as a matter of law

in failing to notify plaintiff [Chevron Chemical]

of the withdrawal of their opinion.” The original state court awarded damages of $1.6 million

to Chevron Chemical

Questions

1 A major focus of the lawsuit that Chevron Chemical filed against Touche Ross was the auditing profession’s rules regarding the “subsequent discovery of facts existing at the date of the auditor’s report.” Those rules distinguish between situations in which a client cooperates with the auditor in making all necessary disclosures and situations involving uncooperative clients Briefly summarize the differing responsibilities that auditors have in these two sets of circumstances

cASe 5.6 a mERican f uEl & s upply c ompany , i nc 325

2 Given your previous answer, do you believe that Touche Ross complied with the applicable professional standards after learning of the error in AfS’s 1985 financial statements? Explain

3 Do you agree with the assertion of AfS’s legal counsel that Touche Ross would have violated the profession’s client confidentiality rule by withdrawing its 1985 audit opinion and notifying all relevant third parties of that decision? Why or why not?

4 Suppose that Touche Ross had resigned as AfS’s auditor following the completion of the 1985 audit but prior to the discovery of the error in the 1985 financial statements What responsibility, if any, would Touche Ross have had when it learned of the error in AfS’s 1985 financial statements?

This page intentionally left blank

SECTION 6

PROFESSIONAL ROLES

6

This page intentionally left blank

CASE 6.1

Leigh Ann Walker, Staff Accountant

Leigh Ann Walker graduated from a major state university with a bachelor’s degree in ac‑

counting.1 During her college career, Walker earned a 3.9 grade point average and partici‑

pated in several extracurricular activities, including three student business organizations

Her closest friends often teased her about the busy schedule she maintained and the fact that she was, at times, a little too “intense.” During her final year of college, Walker inter‑

viewed with several public accounting firms and large corporations and received six job offers After considering those offers, she decided to accept an entry‑level position on the auditing staff of a major international accounting firm Walker was not sure whether she wanted to pursue a partnership position with her new employer But she believed that the training programs the firm provided and the breadth of experience she would receive from a wide array of client assignments would get her career off to a fast start

Walker’s “start date” was June 4th, exactly one month following her graduation date

She spent the first two weeks on her new job at her firm’s regional audit staff training school On returning to her local office in mid‑June, she was assigned to work on the audit of Saint Andrew’s Hospital, a large sectarian hospital with a June 30 fiscal year‑end Walker’s immediate superior on the Saint Andrew’s engagement was Jackie Vaughn, a third‑year senior On her first day on the Saint Andrew’s audit, Walker learned that she would audit the hospital’s cash accounts and assist with accounts receivable Walker was excited about her first client assignment and pleased that she would be working for Vaughn Vaughn had a reputation as a demanding supervisor who typically brought her engagements in under budget She was also known for having an excellent rapport with her clients, a thorough knowledge of technical stan‑

dards, and for being fair and straightforward with her subordinates

Like many newly hired staff auditors, Walker was apprehensive about her new job

She understood the purpose of independent audits and was familiar with the work per‑

formed by auditors but doubted that one auditing course and a two‑week staff‑training seminar had adequately prepared her for her new work role After being assigned to work under Vaughn’s supervision, Walker was relieved She sensed that although Vaughn was demanding, the senior would be patient and understanding with a new staff audi‑

tor More important, she believed that she could learn a great deal from working closely with Vaughn Walker resolved that she would work hard to impress Vaughn and had hopes that the senior would mentor her through the first few years of her career

Early in Walker’s second week on the Saint Andrew’s engagement, Jackie Vaughn casually asked her over lunch one day whether she had taken the CPA examination

in May After a brief pause, Walker replied that she had not but planned to study intensively for the exam during the next five months and then take it in November.2

1 This case is based upon a true set of facts; however, the names of the parties involved have been changed An employee of a job placement firm provided much of the information incorporated in this case This firm had been retained by the student identified in this case as Leigh Ann Walker

2 At the time, the CPA examination was offered twice annually, in November and May In most states, including Leigh Ann’s home state, an individual who sat for the exam for the first time was required to take all four parts

330 Section SiX P rofessional r oles

Vaughn indicated that was a good strategy and offered to lend Walker a set of CPA review manuals–an offer Walker declined In fact, Walker had returned to her home state during the first week of May and sat for the CPA exam, but she was convinced that she had failed it Fear of failure or, rather, fear of admitting failure, caused Walker

to decide not to tell her co‑workers that she had taken the exam She realized that most of her peers would not pass all sections of the exam on their first attempt Nev‑

ertheless, Leigh Ann wanted to avoid the embarrassment of admitting throughout the remainder of her career that she had not been a “first timer.”

Walker continued to work on the Saint Andrew’s engagement throughout the sum‑

mer She completed the cash audit within budget, thoroughly documenting the re‑

sults of the audit procedures she applied Vaughn was pleased with Walker’s work and frequently complimented and encouraged her As the engagement was winding down in early August, Walker received her grades on the CPA exam in the mail one Friday evening To her surprise, she had passed all parts of the exam She immedi‑

ately called Vaughn to let her know of the impressive accomplishment To Walker’s surprise, Vaughn seemed irritated, if not disturbed, by the good news Walker then recalled having earlier told Vaughn that she had not taken the exam in May Walker immediately apologized and explained why she had chosen not to disclose that she had taken the exam Following her explanation, Vaughn still seemed annoyed, so Walker decided to drop the subject and pursue it later in person

The following week, Vaughn spent Monday through Wednesday with another cli‑

ent, while Walker and the other staff assigned to the Saint Andrew’s engagement continued to wrap up the hospital audit On Wednesday morning, Walker received

a call from Don Roberts, the office managing partner and Saint Andrew’s audit en‑

gagement partner Roberts asked Walker to meet with him late that afternoon in his office She assumed that Roberts simply wanted to congratulate her on passing the CPA exam

The usually upbeat Roberts was somber when Walker stepped into his office that afternoon After she was seated, Roberts informed her that he had spoken with Jackie Vaughn several times during the past few days and that he had consulted with the three other audit partners in the office regarding a situation involving Walker

Roberts told Walker that Vaughn was very upset by the fact that she (Walker) had lied regarding the CPA exam Vaughn had indicated that she would not be comfortable having a subordinate on future engagements whom she could not trust to be truthful

Vaughn had also suggested that Walker be dismissed from the firm because of the lack of integrity she had demonstrated

After a brief silence, Roberts told a stunned Walker that he and the other audit partners agreed with Vaughn He informed Walker that she would be given 60 days

to find another job Roberts also told Walker that he and the other partners would not disclose that she had been “counseled out” of the firm if they were contacted by employers interested in hiring her

Questions

1 In your opinion, did Vaughn overreact to Walker’s admission that she had been untruthful regarding the CPA exam? If so, how would you have dealt with the situation if you had been in Vaughn’s position? How would you have dealt with the situation if you had been in Roberts’ position?

2 Vaughn obviously questioned Walker’s personal integrity Is it possible that one can fulfill the responsibilities of a professional role while lacking personal integrity? Why or why not?

CASE 6.2

Bill DeBurger, In‑Charge Accountant

“Bill, will you have that inventory memo done by this afternoon?”

“Yeah, Sam, it’s coming along I should have it done by five, or so.”

“Make it three or so Okay, Bub?”

Bill responded with a smile and a nod He had a good relationship with Sam Hakes, the partner supervising the audit of Marcelle Stores.1

Bill DeBurger was an in‑charge accountant who had 18 months experience with his employer, a large national accounting firm Bill’s firm used the title “in‑charge”

for the employment position between staff accountant and audit senior Other titles used by accounting firms for this position include “advanced staff” and “semi‑senior.”

Typically, Bill’s firm promoted individuals to in‑charge after one year An additional one to two years experience and successful completion of the CPA exam were usu‑

ally required before promotion to audit senior The title “in‑charge” was a misnomer,

at least in Bill’s mind None of the in‑charges he knew had ever been placed in charge

of an audit, even a small audit Based upon Bill’s experience, an in‑charge was some‑

one a senior or manager expected to work with little or no supervision “Here’s the audit program for payables Go spend the next five weeks completing the 12 program steps and don’t bother me,” seemed to be the prevailing attitude in making work assignments to in‑charges

As he turned back to the legal pad in front of him, Bill forced himself to think of Marcelle Stores’ inventory–all $50 million of it Bill’s task was to summarize it in a two‑page memo, 900 hours of work that he, two staff accountants, and five internal auditors had done over the past two months Not included in the 900 hours was the time spent on eight inventory observations performed by other offices of Bill’s firm

Marcelle Stores was a regional chain of 112 specialty stores that featured a broad range of products for do‑it‑yourself interior decorators The company’s most re‑

cent fiscal year had been a difficult one A poor economy, increasing competition, and higher supplier prices had slashed Marcelle’s profit to the bone over the past

12 months The previous year, the company had posted a profit of slightly less than

$8 million; for the year just completed, the company’s pre‑audit net income hovered

at an anemic $500,000

Inventory was the focal point of each audit of Marcelle’s financial statements This year, inventory was doubly important Any material overstatement discovered in the inventory account would convert a poor year profit‑wise for Marcelle into a disas‑

trous year in which the company posted its first‑ever loss

Facing Bill on the small table that served as his makeshift desk were two stacks of workpapers, each two feet tall Those workpapers summarized the results of exten‑

sive price tests, inventory observation procedures, year‑end cutoff tests, an analysis

of the reserve for inventory obsolescence, and various other audit procedures Bill’s

1 The source for this case was a former public accountant who is now a college instructor The names

of the parties involved in the case and certain other background facts have been changed.

332 Section SiX P rofessional r oles

task was to assimilate all of this audit evidence into a conclusion regarding Marcelle’s inventory Bill realized that Sam Hakes expected that conclusion to include the key catch phrase “presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.”

As Bill attempted to outline the inventory memo, he gradually admitted to himself that he had no idea whether Marcelle’s inventory dollar value was materially accu‑

rate The workpaper summarizing the individual errors discovered in the inventory account reflected a net overstatement of only $72,000 That amount was not material even in reference to Marcelle’s unusually small net income However, Bill realized that the $72,000 figure was little better than a guess

The client’s allowance for inventory obsolescence particularly troubled Bill He had heard a rumor that Marcelle intended to discontinue 2 of the 14 sales departments in its stores If that were true, the inventory in those departments would have to be sold

at deep discounts The collective dollar value of those two departments’ inventory approached $6 million, while the client’s allowance for inventory obsolescence had

a year‑end balance of only $225,000 Earlier in the audit, Bill had asked Sam about the rumored closing of the two departments The typically easygoing partner had replied with a terse “Don’t worry about it.”

Bill always took his work assignments seriously and wanted to do a professional job in completing them He believed that independent audits served an extremely important role in a free market economy Bill was often annoyed that not all of his colleagues shared that view Some of his co‑workers seemed to have an attitude of

“just get the work done.” They stressed form over substance: “Tic and tie, make the workpapers look good, and don’t be too concerned with the results A clean opinion

is going to be issued no matter what you find.”

Finally, Bill made a decision He would not sign off on the inventory account regard‑

less of the consequences He did not know whether the inventory account balance was materially accurate, and he was not going to write a memo indicating otherwise

Moments later, Bill walked into the client office being used by Sam Hakes and closed the door behind him

“What’s up?” Sam asked as he flipped through a workpaper file

“Sam, I’ve decided that I can’t sign off on the inventory account,” Bill blurted out

“What?” was Sam’s stunned, one‑word reply

Bill stalled for a few moments to bolster his courage as he fidgeted with his tie

“Well like I said, I’m not signing off on the inventory account.”

“Why?” By this point, a disturbing crimson shade had already engulfed Sam’s ears and was creeping slowly across his face

“Sam I just don’t think I can sign off I mean, I’m just not sure whether the inven‑

tory number is right.”

“You’re just not sure?” After a brief pause, Sam continued, this time pronounc‑

ing each of his words with a deliberate and sarcastic tone “You mean to tell me that you spent almost 1,000 hours on that account, and you’re just not sure whether the general ledger number is right?”

“Well yeah Ya know, it’s just tough to to reach a conclusion, ya know, on an account that large.”

Sam leaned back in his chair and cleared his throat before speaking “Mr De‑

Burger, I want you to go back into that room of yours and close the door Then you sit down at that table and write a nice, neat, very precise and to‑the‑point inventory memo And hear this: I’m not telling you what to include in that memo But you’re go‑

ing to write that memo, and you’re going to have it on my desk in two hours Under‑

stood?” Sam’s face was entirely crimson as he completed his short speech