I really enjoyed this article. I think my readers will too.
The debate over the efficiencies of Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) continued this week with additional criticism of their use. I have argued that DPAs are in a corporation’s interest because they can bring certainty to the conclusion of an enforcement action and allow it to make remedial changes and move forward. However yesterday I came across an article by Larry Katzen, a former partner at Arthur Andersen and author of “And You Thought Accountants were Boring – My Life Inside Arthur Andersen.” Katzen’s piece is entitled “A Business World Massacre – What Can Happen
When Government Needs a Scapegoat” and it details the destruction of the firm after it’s guilty verdict surrounding the Enron scandal. Katzen articulates the human costs for the total wipeout of the firm and sets out clearly what can happen when a company goes to trial and sustains a guilty verdict. I…
View original post 1,080 more words
Pilant's Business Ethics Blog 
I had some experience with Arthur Andersen through a audit at a hospital in the 1980’s, and I had the highest respect for their professionalism and knowledge. I was shocked by the allegations in 2001, but like most people I took the accusations to be legitimate. I was unaware of the 2005 ruling and am disgusted at the way this was handled. There are many corporations that deserve to be under intense scrutiny, but it should be done with the intent of exposing unethical people and practices and remedying them. To just destroy a company for no reason should result on charges of malfeasance on those involved.
LikeLike
Thanks for a helpful and illuminating comment. jp
LikeLike
Please…all AA did was rubber stamp the company books.
LikeLike
I tend to look at it that way, myself.
LikeLike