Tag: Accounting Fraud

Silvercorp Metals Asks That You Not Believe Anonymous Letters Alleging Accounting Fraud Just Because They Have Assets in China

As we’ve discussed, companies listed on North American stock exchanges that happen to have ties to China haven’t faired too well. The problem? Some dodgy accounting and disclosures. It’s caused a lot of angst amongst investors and there was enough concern that someone actually decided to wake up the PCAOB and SEC to let them know that something might not quite right over there.

Today’s news that Silvercorp Metals, a Canadian mining company who happens to do some work in China, is the subject of a letter that is making the rounds alleging accounting fraud probably doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone but it sure has irked the hell out of the company.

The allegations against Silvercorp are “entirely bogus,” Lorne Waldman, a Silvercorp spokesman, said today in a telephone interview. “If we didn’t have assets in China this wouldn’t be happening.”

And while they’re at it, the company will have you know that they were not created in a one those so-called reverse mergers that have everyone sketched out.

Waldman denied the mining company was created in a so- called reverse takeover, as was Sino-Forest. He said that Silvercorp’s auditor is Ernst & Young LLP, the same firm that audited Sino-Forest’s financial statements.

Oh, right. Ernst & Young. There’s no cause for concern since they’ve seen this before so they’ll probably just sit tight to see what happens. The silver lining for Silvercorp is that Roddy Boyd has written anything about them. Yet.

Silvercorp Says Accounting-Fraud Allegation in Anonymous Letter Is False [Bloomberg]

SEC: Diebold Financial Execs Would Step Over Their Own Mothers to Meet Earnings Forecasts

The Diebold CFO, controller and Director of Corporate Accounting had a fairly standard routine back from 2002 to 2007 – 1) get daily “flash reports” 2) look at BS estimates that analysts came up with 3) cook up some ideas for meeting those estimates 4) make up the numbers.

Pretty standard stuff, especially if you buy the idea that “legally cooking the books is a critical skill for attracting investors.”


The SEC presented the accounting hocus-pocus earlier today:

The SEC alleges that Diebold’s financial management received “flash reports” — sometimes on a daily basis — comparing the company’s actual earnings to analyst earnings forecasts. Diebold’s financial management prepared “opportunity lists” of ways to close the gap between the company’s actual financial results and analyst forecasts. Many of the opportunities on these lists were fraudulent accounting transactions designed to improperly recognize revenue or otherwise inflate Diebold’s financial performance.
…
Among the fraudulent accounting practices used to inflate earnings and meet forecasts were:

• Improper use of “bill and hold” accounting.
• Recognition of revenue on a lease agreement subject to a side buy-back agreement.
• Manipulating reserves and accruals.
• Improperly delaying and capitalizing expenses.
• Writing up the value of used inventory.

Gotta give yourself some options, amiright? Can’t just simply rely on channel stuffing!

But in all seriousness, if you’re a top financial executive at a company and part of your daily routine is finding ways to increase profitability through accounting manipulation, at some point you’d have to think to yourself, “This is one shitty business we’re running.”

REMEC Court Decision Could Expose Companies to More Accounting Fraud Litigation

This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.

As if it wasn’t a big enough risk already, CFOs may have to brace themselves for more private litigation over accounting fraud if a court decision on April 21 involving failed telecom equipment maker REMEC serves as precedent. The good news is that plaintiffs will have to show evidence of the executives’ intent in such cases.


Most cases involving accounting are either dismissed because they involve judgment or are settled before they go to trial, Robert Brownlie, a partner in the law firm of DLA Piper who represented the defendants in the REMEC case, told CFOZone last Thursday. The Del Mar, Calif., company filed for bankruptcy in 2005.

One of the largest such cases involved former Lucent executives, whom shareholders charged had defrauded them through improper accounting for goodwill. In that case, shareholders agreed in 2003 to accept a $600 million settlement.

In contrast to the Lucent case, the one filed by shareholders against REMEC’s former CEO, Ronald Ragland, and former CFO, Winston Hickman, was dismissed, though it also rested on charges that they misled investors because they didn’t write off goodwill that was impaired.

But the dismissal was more difficult to achieve than it would otherwise have been, said Brownlie, because the plaintiffs submitted evidence of internal reports and testimony showing that the company was behind schedule on certain objectives and not meeting its internal forecasts. The court said that those reports created a factual issue that should be determined by a jury; the defendants had to show there was no evidence of intent to deceive on the part of management.

“Normally, with matters of opinion or judgment, you either can’t bring a suit or it’s very difficult to do so,” Brownlie said. But he warned that the decision could mean more cases against corporate executives over accounting fraud.

The court dismissed the charges even though the plaintiffs’ accounting experts testified that they would have reached different conclusions than the former executives did.

Brownlie added that his case was helped by evidence of good faith conduct by the defendants, including evidence of transparency between the company and its auditors, disclosures of disappointing results and write-offs of other accounting items during the period of the alleged fraud and the absence of stock sales.

Describing the outcome for CFOs as “both good and bad news,” Brownlie said the decision showed that the critical issue in such cases will be “a connection between claims and evidence.” And he cautioned that in other accounting cases, it’s likely to be harder to defend executives on the basis of intent, which is why he said “there’s a paradox” in the REMEC decision.