To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
oops- you forgot that the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously overturned the verdict against Arthur Andersen. Unanimously. Or does that not count?
Disposing of superseded, errant, extra and extraneous material by shredding is part of every accounting firms standard process so as to exercise effective version control.
How would you do this?
What an insipid comment and childish drawing. And insensitive to all who lost their employnet never having done anything wrong.
“Workers at four Andersen offices in the U.S. and Europe toiled around the clock for two weeks to destroy ‘tons’ of documents after federal regulators launched a probe into Enron’s accounting.”
You’re absolutely correct that no charges stuck to Arthur Andersen, but it’s also absolutely clear to me that — although they followed the auditing standards of the time — they failed their responsibility to the public.
Also, yes, the cartoon is insensitive to the Arthur Andersen employees who lost their jobs. But isn’t defending them insensitive to all the innocent people who lost their life savings as a result of Arthur Andersen being more interested in revenue than in calling out unethical (albeit compliant) accounting practices.
And, admittedly, the quality of the drawing is on par with a nine-year-old.
I agree that Greggy’s attempted illustration sucked. It was also way outdated as no one really cares what happened 20-22 years ago. Many good people got screwed but Greggy could care less.
But I will defend ole Greggy boy…we give him every right to be a tool and he has surpassed our expectations.
Comments are closed.