“Banning [EY] for three years from UK public contracts would send an incredibly powerful message that the government will not give public contracts to companies that engage in misconduct … and do not get their house in order.”
— Spotlight on Corruption, an anti-corruption campaign group based in the U.K., wrote in a recent letter to the Crown Procurement Service, asking it to examine if government business should be awarded to EY in the future.
The SoC called on the government to prevent EY from being able to bid on U.K. government contracts for three years—basically because of EY’s propensity for shitty auditing, thus leading to scandals that have rocked companies like Luckin Coffee, Wirecard, and NMC Health.
EY just moved to a “new” (basically the same, but it does look more flashy) expense reimbursement system in the US. Along with that move though, my expense pay back times have increased from usually about a 2-3 day turn around for approval to a 5-7 day approval. While it’s not unheard of that it would take that long, I was wondering if other EY people were experiencing the same payment delays and what this could be signaling? Just slow/less staff processing expense reports or is this some sort of cash flow management? I’m not sure that that even makes sense since we bill the client for the expenses, so it puts off the billing process as well as the reimbursement process.
As to why and how this happening, we’re guessing that those of you that got into the habit of going to Bobby Vans twice a month, playing Omaha, Hold ‘Em et al. on the web and lap dances and somehow convinced yourself it was business related have finally broke the proverbial camelback. It’s either that or Jim Turley is pulling up his boot straps and checking every single expense report himself.
Ernst & Young’s Response to New York Attorney General’s Complaint
New York, 21 December 2010 – We intend to vigorously defend against the civil claims alleged by the New York Attorney General.
There is no factual or legal basis for a claim to be brought against an auditor in this context where the accounting for the underlying transaction is in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Lehman’s audited financial statements clearly portrayed Lehman as a highly leveraged entity operating in a risky and volatile industry.
Lehman’s bankruptcy occurred in the midst of a global financial crisis triggered by dramatic increases in mortgage defaults, associated losses in mortgage and real estate portfolios, and a severe tightening of liquidity. Lehman’s bankruptcy was preceded and followed by other bankruptcies, distressed mergers, restructurings, and government bailouts of all of the other major investment banks, as well as other major financial institutions. In short, Lehman’s bankruptcy was not caused by any accounting issues.
What we have here is a significant expansion of the Martin Act. Although the Martin Act is almost 90 years old, we believe this is the first time that an Attorney General is attempting to use this law to assert claims against an accounting firm, rather than the company that took the alleged actions.
We look forward to presenting the facts in a court of law.
In other words, Andy – get lost; drop dead; suck it. AM Law Daily reports that E&Y has big guns on the case:
Miles Ruthberg, a former global litigation chair at Latham & Watkins, confirmed, via an e-mail to The Am Law Daily, that he’s representing E&Y in the suit along with Latham securities litigation and professional liability cochair Jamie Wine and Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel white-collar defense and SEC regulatory cochair Barry Berke. Latham, which has previously represented E&Y, has been handling securities litigation against the accounting firm stemming from Lehman’s failure.
To mark this occasion, we present an appropriate video (BL-inspired):
