Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Lehman Brothers’

The auditor disciplinary arm of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) of the UK has concluded its investigation and on June 22, 2012 announced that Ernst & Young (EY) is not to be penalized for its audit of the November 30, 2007, financial statements of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc (LBHI).

Executive Counsel considers that there is no realistic prospect that a Tribunal would make an adverse finding against Ernst & Young LLP in the UK or Members within that firm. The investigation will therefore be closed and no further action taken.

Coupled with an earlier announcement from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the US that no legal proceedings are likely to be initiated against EY or its employees, this marks the end of one the darkest chapters in recent accounting and auditing history.

Although EY will not be penalized for failing to alert investors to LBHI’s sophisticated scheme to manipulate its financial statements, it has embarrassed itself and shamed all of us in the accounting and auditing industry.

EY has showed itself to be no better than Arthur Andersen.  Ernst & Young, shame on you. 

The FRC is the regulator and standard-setter in the UK responsible for corporate governance and financial reporting as well as the audit, accounting and actuarial professions.  It is not a governmental unit, but a private organization.  It operates in the public interest.

The FRC operates in a manner similar to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) of the US.

A unit of the FRC, Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board (“AADB”), has investigated Ernst & Young over the LBHI matter.  This is its summary of the investigation:

  1. On 10th June 2010 the Accountancy and Actuarial Discipline Board (“AADB”) considered the matter of Lehman Brothers (“Lehmans”) and decided, pursuant to paragraph 5(8) of the AADB Accountancy Scheme (“the Scheme”), that the matter should be investigated by the AADB.
  2. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI”) sought Chapter 11 protection in the United States of America on 15thSeptember 2008. The US Bankruptcy Court nominated an Examiner, Anton R. Valukas, who published his report into Lehmans’ collapse on 11th March 2010. The report made criticisms of Lehmans’ auditor, Ernst & Young, for failing to question and challenge improper or inadequate disclosures in Lehmans’ financial statements. The Examiner’s criticisms specifically related to the use by Lehmans of transactions known as Repo 105 and Repo 108 transactions. The report did not specify whether the criticisms related to the primary auditor of LBHI, which was Ernst & Young in New York, or Ernst & Young generally.
  3. Repo 105s and Repo 108s were used by Lehmans to raise short term funds and, by virtue of compliance with US Financial Accounting Standard 140 (“FAS140”) which requires certain transactions to be treated as sales instead of financing transactions, enabled Lehmans to reduce its balance sheet and leverage ratios. The Examiner found that whilst the use of Repo 105/ 108 transactions may not have been inherently improper its sole function as employed by Lehmans was balance sheet manipulation.
  4. The scope of the AADB investigation was as follows:“The conduct of Members and a Member Firm in relation to: (a) the preparation and audits of the financial statements of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.and UK operations including Lehman Brothers International (Europe) for the year ended 30th November 2007;and (b) the use and accounting treatment of transactions known as “Repo 105s” and “Repo 108s” by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and UK operations including Lehman Brothers International (Europe).”
  1. The focus of the investigation was the audit by Ernst & Young LLP in the UK (“EYUK”) of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (“LBIE”) and of Repo 105 and Repo 108 transactions which were conducted through LBIE.  EYUK audited the trial balance of LBIE prepared under US GAAP for consolidation into LBHI’s consolidated financial statements. The audit of LBIE’s trial balance formed the basis of a ‘Specific Scope Conclusion’ to Ernst & Young in New York.
  2. In the course of the investigation, the investigation team obtained and reviewed EYUK’s audit files; hard copy documentation; information from EYUK staff members’ laptops and emails, and information from other regulators. The team also interviewed EYUK audit team staff and former members of staff of Lehmans.

Debit and credit – – David Albrecht


Want more of The Summa? Sign up to receive email notification of posts.  And please follow me on Twitter (@profalbrecht).

Read Full Post »

Mary Schapiro is the Chairman of the SEC. Richard Fuld is the ex-CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers

Classify this under speculative rumor, I suppose.  In a story by Jean Eaglesham and Lis Rappaport, “Lehman Probe Stalls; Chance of No Charges,” it is reported that SEC officials are considering dropping thoughts of filing charges against former Lehman Brothers executives.

The U.S. government’s investigation into the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has hit daunting hurdles that could result in no civil or criminal charges ever being filed against the company’s former executives, people familiar with the situation said.

In recent months, Securities and Exchange Commission officials have grown increasingly doubtful they can prove that Lehman violated U.S. laws by using an accounting maneuver to move as much as $50 billion in assets off its balance sheet, which made it appear that the securities firm had reduced its debt levels.

SEC officials also aren’t confident they could win any lawsuit …

Qué lástima! (What a pity!)  Qué pena! (What a shame!) Eso apesta! (That sucks!)

I don’t care if the case can’t be won.  Bringing them to trial for Repo 105 schenanigans is a symbolic act that will cheer investors.  Sometimes in war it is appropriate to fight to the death.

This is the porn viewing SEC, the Madoff enabling SEC.  Does it also want to be known as the federal agency that let Lehman Brothers off the hook?

Better go after Ernst & Young, a seemingly more winnable case.

Debit and credit – – David Albrecht

Read Full Post »

Over on the the AECM listserv, several of us are fans of Ed Ketz (Penn State prof) and his Accounting Cycle column at SmartPros.  For example, when Bob Jensen passes along the link to Ketz’s latest editorial, he always labels it “Ketz Me If You Can.”  Tom Selling (Accounting Onion), sometimes calls his editorials, “The Betz From Ketz.”  For my part, I occasionally feature Ketz on these pages, saying to myself, “Letz Getz Ketz on this.”

Today, Ed Ketz published an absolute must read editorial on his Accounting Cycle, “NY v. Ernst & Young: Who Cares Whether Lehman Brothers Followed GAAP?

Ketz starts off by saying that Ernst & Young intends to fight the civil lawsuit alleging fraud in the Lehman Brothers case.  I’ve noticed the same thing.  In anticipation of a trial, E&Y has petitioned to have the case heard in federal district court instead of a New York state court.  Based on pretrial statements, E&Y has repeatedly mentioned that Lehman Brothers was following GAAP, so technically no rules were broken.

Ketz notes that the current case is very similar to the 1960s Continental Vending case (US v Simon 425 F.2d 796).  In this case three auditors from Lybrand, Ross Brothers, and Montgomery were charged with criminal fraud.  Ketz writes:

While agreeing with the facts presented by the federal prosecutors, the defendants relied on a number of expert witnesses, all of whom stated that the deficiencies mentioned above were not part of generally accepted accounting principles.  The trial judge issued directions to the jury that negated this perspective by maintaining that “the ‘critical test’ was whether the financial statements as a whole ‘fairly presented the financial position of Continental as of September 30, 1962, and whether it accurately reported the operations for fiscal 1962.”  The jury found the defendants (auditors)  guilty.  The auditors appealed, but the circuit court affirmed the decision.  The auditors then appealed to the Supreme Court, but it denied certiorari. [emphasis mine]

I think Ed Ketz’s analysis is sound.  Although we can’t foresee the judge’s rulings in this case, E&Y is at risk here.   Based on what I have read in the the Valukas report and the NY court complaint, it is my opinion that Lehman Brothers adopted its accounting practices with the intention to deceive investors and regulators.  As such, their accounting shenanigans are absolutely repugnant to me.  What’s more, I believe that E&Y auditors were aware of this motive, and blessed the accounting anyway.  Technically correct or not, Lehman Brothers intended for its financial statements to not fairly present the results of operations.  And E&Y opined that they did fairly present.

Will the jury be allowed to base its decision on the fairly presented issue?  Tune in later.

Debit and credit – – David Albrecht

Read Full Post »

Today, December 21, 2010, the Attorney General of the State of New York filed civil suit against Ernst & Young for fraud in connection with financial reporting by Lehman Brothers.

Does this mean that we have entered the era of the Big 3?

The charges (Ernst-Young-Complaint) were filed by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo on behalf of the citizens of New York.  Here are a few key excerpt (with my highlights on key wording):

E&Y substantially assisted Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman,” or the “Company”), now bankrupt, to engage in a massive accounting fraud, involving the surreptitious removal of tens of billions of dollars of securities from Lehman’s balance sheet in order to create a false impression of Lehman’s liquidity, thereby defrauding the investing public.

The allegations conclude with:

E&Y knew every significant aspect of Lehman’s Repo 105 transactions, and knew that the Lehman financial statements violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”), which require that such statements (a) not be misleading, (b) fairly disclose the Company’s financial position, and (c) not omit material information necessary to fairly present the financial position. As the public auditor for Lehman, E&Y had the absolute obligation to ensure that Lehman’s financial statements complied with GAAP and did not mislead the public.  Instead of fulfilling this obligation, E&Y gave a clean opinion each year, erroneously stating that Lehman’s financial statements complied with GAAP. E&Y sat by silently while Lehman deceived the public by concealing the Repo 105 transactions and misrepresenting the Company’s leverage. By doing so, E&Y directly facilitated a major accounting fraud, and helped Lehman mislead the public as to its true financial condition. E&Y, which reaped over $150 million in fees from Lehman, must be held accountable for its role in this fraud.

In the complaint, Cuomo alleges that Lehman Brothers was engaging in Repo 105 transactions from 2001 until 2008 (date of Lehman bankruptcy) with full knowledge and approval of Ernst & Young.  Allegedly, Ernst & Young knew the motivation for the Repo 105 transactions was to distort the financial statements.  Also, allegedly Ernst & Young knew that in practice Lehman’s transactions violated the terms of the Linklaters letter of safe harbor.

Until settled in a court of law, Ernst & Young stands legally innocent.  However, if these charges are true, then I simply can’t imagine that any investor would view any Ernst & Young audit opinion as credible.  Even if Ernst & Young escapes these charges, my faith in the firm has been shaken to the core.

Debit and credit.

Read Full Post »

Lehman Brothers used an accounting gimmick to increase a key percentage in its balance sheet, thereby appearing to be better off that it actually was.  This accounting gimmick was used to hit certain target numbers in an attempt to (1) keeping stock prices from dropping, and (2) forestall regulators from stepping in and forcing bankruptcy at an earlier date.

In the end, it was not enough to save the company.

Lehman capitalized on a “bad” accounting rule that allows what is called off-balance sheet financing.  Specifically, Lehman was able to remove liabilities from the balance sheet, thereby reducing leverage (the relative percentage of financial liabilities) and increasing the relative percentage of capital (or stockholders equity).

Was it an attempt to deceive?  Obviously, but activities that fudge some number happen every day in every company.  Was it material, or large enough to deceive?  At first glance the numbers involved are pretty small.  I’ll walk you through the analysis, but you have to go through a lot to find any percentages boosted a material amount.  But materiality is a judgment call, and Ernst & Young might not have reasoned the Repo 105 use was material (I’ll explain how to justify E&Y’s position).

(more…)

Read Full Post »

How well does the average person understand financial statement manipulation?  Sometimes the numbers are gimmicked up because of odd nonsensical transactions, ala Lehman Brothers.  Sometimes the numbers are out and out fictionalized.  Sometimes investor attention is simply distracted away.

Bob Jensen passed along a post over at the AECM listserv, in which he used a few Barbie dolls to make a point.  Sprucing it up just a bit, here’s the story. [Disclaimer: I do not support the “culture of thinness” promoted by Barbie Dolls.]

Lehman Brothers Balance Sheet “Before”

Lehman Brothers balance sheet bloated with too many financial liabilities

Lehman Brothers Balance Sheet “After”

The balance sheet after cash from Repo 105/108 has paid down financial liabilities

SEC’s Mary Schapiro Called to the Rescue

There were no pictures of Barbie as a white knight in shining armor


Switching the subject, just a bit.  Over the years, Mattel (producer of Barbie dolls) has used child actors to promote its toys.  Recently, it used two of the cutest to present a disclaimer that precedes an interactive edition of its annual report.  I can’t embed the video (as much as I’d like to), so click on the following link and press the start button.  In my opinion, this is inappropriate.  Financial reporting is serious business for serious people.  It shouldn’t be made light of.  And, after watching this “kid” disclaimer, I think the viewer is happy enough to cut Mattel some slack for whatever follows.

http://corporate.mattel.com


My apologies to the copyright owners of these images.  I’ve borrowed without permission.  If you come across this page, would you grant me permission to use these images?

Debit and credit – – David Albrecht

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: