SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (48645)3/14/2002 9:03:36 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Amalie is Da Best......
A Must have on video when its released
...Glad you enjoyed It Jim..( saw it 3 X)...
love the actress....
Yum...http://www.amelie-themovie.com/
Film technique...story line...
It deserves the Big O...hands down
Stay well Amigo
T
ps..Rent... "Run Lola Run"...German...high speed ..great fun..
guns ...gal...bad boy stuff..:o)



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (48645)3/14/2002 11:40:04 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Andersen spurns government's deadline to plead guilty

From Houston Chronicle staff and wire reports
March 14, 2002, 10:25AM


WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department prepared to bring criminal charges against Arthur Andersen after the accounting firm spurned a government deadline to plead guilty in the Enron scandal, sources familiar with the proceedings said today.

Andersen accused the Justice Department of a "gross abuse of government power" and said criminal charges would be a "death penalty" against the firm. One person familiar with the matter indicated that federal obstruction-of-justice charges would be filed in Houston as early as this afternoon.

The 9 a.m. deadline set by Justice passed without any word from either side, but in a letter to the department, Andersen lawyers signaled strongly that there would be no guilty plea.

"We submit that there is no basis for the government to take the unprecedented step of bringing criminal felony charges against Arthur Andersen LLP, when the evidence of criminal misconduct on the part of the firm as an institution is so flimsy," one of Andersen's outside lawyers, Richard J. Favretto of the firm Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, said in the letter. The letter went to Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, head of the department's criminal division.

Representatives of Arthur Andersen, which has admitted massive shredding of Enron-related documents by its employees, have been repeatedly threatened with indictment by federal prosecutors over the past week to 10 days.

With clients abandoning the embattled accounting firm in droves and competitors steering clear until the criminal issues are resolved, Andersen officials strove desperately to ward off an indictment of the entire company.

But cognizant of Andersen's dire position, prosecutors with the U.S. Justice Department aren't just playing hardball, "they're playing rollerball," said a source close to the talks between Andersen and the Justice Department, referring to the movie about a blood sport played on skates.

Angered by prosecutor's tactics, senior Andersen executives have decided the firm will not plead guilty to charges of obstruction of justice in the Enron case, The New York Times reported Wednesday night.

The planned charges by the department constitute "a gross abuse of governmental power," the Times quoted from a letter Andersen lawyers sent to a senior official at the Justice Department.

Andersen, Enron's outside auditor, already has admitted its Houston office shredded numerous Enron-related documents.

Andersen's attorneys were scheduled to meet today with Michael Chertoff, head of the Justice Department's criminal division. It was unclear late Wednesday whether that meeting will now take place.

If Andersen can not reach an agreement with the federal government, the firm could face a federal indictment, as early as today.

Andersen officials have been trying to limit the scope of the guilty plea to the Houston office, but prosecutors want it widened.

Andersen lawyers believe they could fight such charges in court.

"There's a danger they will get an indictment for something that's not a crime," said one attorney close to Andersen.

In the letter to the Justice Department, Andersen attorney Richard J. Favretto of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw wrote that the government's evidence does not merit a prosecution of the entire firm.

Though several Andersen "partners and employees unquestionably exercised poor judgment, a criminal prosecution against the entire firm for obstruction of justice would be both factually and legally baseless," Favretto wrote, according to the New York Times.

Attorneys say current and former Andersen employees have testified in recent depositions that Enron-related documents were destroyed pursuant to longstanding, industrywide practices, not as a coverup.

That testimony would undermine a charge of destruction of evidence, but Andersen might not survive long enough to challenge it in a trial.

Andersen's situation grew dicier Wednesday when two of the other Big Five accounting firms -- Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu and Ernst & Young -- announced they had abandoned merger talks.

Deloitte Touche said it was "unable to continue to the next stage of discussions due to Andersen's unresolved litigation and legal issues."

Ernst & Young noted that "as long as Enron and other Andersen litigation matters are unresolved, it is not in the best interests of our people, clients and our firm to pursue such a combination."

"I don't believe any of the other Big Five firms will be so unwise and naïve as to get into bed in a merger with Andersen," said Larry Lindsey, managing director for SageGroup Strategies, an adviser to troubled companies.

"Mergers are hard enough to pull off when the two sides want to be with each other," Lindsey said.

Even if a deal could be reached, Andersen's thousands of partners aren't likely to enjoy working for a longtime competitor.

"Andersen still thinks of itself as the Marine Corps of public accounting, but a merger would reduce them to grunts," said Michael Granof, an accounting professor at the University of Texas at Austin. "One would assume they'd be treated like al-Qaida prisoners in Cuba once they merged."

To extricate itself from its quagmire, Andersen could consider filing for bankruptcy protection.

But it would need the consent of all the partners to file for bankruptcy, and that could prove difficult, said Nancy Rapoport, dean of the University of Houston Law Center and a bankruptcy expert.

"Typically a partnership needs to have all the general partners' consent to file, but that never happens," Rapoport said.

To get around reluctant partners, a group of Andersen partners could first file an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Since a Chapter 7 bankruptcy would mean liquidation of Andersen assets, the recalcitrant partners would have a powerful incentive to join the filing quickly and convert it to a voluntary Chapter 11 reorganization.

Under Chapter 11 the company could sell off certain practice groups to competitors, allowing some partners a way to transition to another firm without carrying a legal liability to their new employers.

What could make that route attractive to the SEC and creditors is that Andersen could also create a pool of cash to handle any settlement payments in the many civil suits filed against it, Rapoport said.

This was a strategy used by Johns Manville Corp. in the 1980s as a way to pay for millions of dollars in asbestos-exposure claims, Rapoport said. There's one major difference: Johns Manville re-emerged under its own name, and it's unlikely Andersen could.

"What may be good for Arthur Andersen is likely to be bad for creditors, hence they will do what they can to block any measures that limit their access to Andersen's resources," said Granof.

--------------------------------------------------



To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (48645)3/15/2002 3:21:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 65232
 
Execution Before Trial for Andersen

By FLOYD NORRIS
The New York Times
March 15, 2002

Arthur Andersen admits to making a lot of mistakes, but it refused to plead guilty to obstruction of justice. And so yesterday it was indicted in what the firm said was "a gross abuse of government power."

It is customary to say that a judge and jury will decide guilt. But in this case, the punishment may well come before the verdict. The maximum legal penalty, said Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson in announcing the indictment, is a $500,000 fine. In reality, many in the accounting business believe, the death penalty seems virtually certain.

As Dr. Samuel Johnson once pointed out, the prospect of hanging concentrates the mind. Knowing it faces death if it dallies, Andersen may choose to demand an immediate trial and see if the Justice Department can prove that the firm — as opposed to some of its partners — is guilty.

Conceivably, acquittal could give it a chance to survive. But this is a firm that was unable to find a merger partner because of its incalculable financial liabilities stemming from the problems at Enron (news/quote) and that is having more clients desert every day. Even though the Securities and Exchange Commission says it will still accept Andersen's audits, few companies want to risk telling their shareholders that they are hiring Andersen again. Even before the indictment, Andersen's reputation was in tatters.

Andersen does have some supporters. "They should survive," said David S. Ruder, a law professor at Northwestern University and a former S.E.C. chairman. "Even the allegations at their worst," he added, make it appear that 95 percent of the firm was not involved. "I don't see any need to dissolve Andersen and force it into bankruptcy," he said, adding that the firm could be a very good auditor after it makes the reforms proposed by Paul A. Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Yesterday, Andersen pledged to make those reforms.

Deputy US Attorney General Larry Thompson, center, joined by Task Force Prosecutor Leslie Cauldwell, left, and Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, announces the indictments against the accounting firm of Authur Andersen for destruction of document pertaining to the United States government's investigation of the Enron energy company at the Justice Department in Washington, DC, on Thursday.

One government official involved in the case expressed concern about the indictment's consequences for Andersen. "The sentence does not fit the crime," said the official. He added that he feared reform efforts would be set back if Andersen did not survive to adopt Mr. Volcker's ideas. The other major accounting firms, now being called the Final Four, have shown scant enthusiasm for the Volcker proposals.

Andersen's death, if it does come, could be messy. Others in the Final Four may try to pick off Andersen affiliates in foreign countries. There could be a scramble by companies to sign up new auditors before competing firms decide they have all the clients they can handle.

In recent weeks, there was talk of a global settlement in which Andersen would cut a deal with the Justice Department and resolve S.E.C. charges with commitments for reform. Such an agreement might have provided the basis for Andersen's survival, either alone or with a dignified merger into another firm. But negotiations broke down, and the indictment followed.

In the current political environment, said Arthur Levitt, a former S.E.C. chairman, it was impossible for government agencies "to broker the kind of settlement that might have preserved the best elements of Andersen" and kept it in business.

"This is a sad moment," Mr. Levitt added. "I hope the opportunity for reform will not be lost."

There is no doubt that Andersen employees shredded huge quantities of Enron documents after the S.E.C. began its investigation. Andersen argued that its senior management did not authorize the destruction, and presented a report by independent law firms to support its claims. If prosecutors have evidence to the contrary, they did not disclose it.

But even if top management did not know of the shredding, it did make some major errors in judgment. Last year, when Andersen became the first major accounting firm in decades to face a civil fraud complaint filed by the S.E.C., Andersen settled the case without admitting or denying the charges, which stemmed from fraudulent financial statements filed by Waste Management (news/quote) in the mid-1990's.

Andersen did not even appear contrite. There was no sense that the firm thought the Waste Management case showed it had a serious internal problem. The partners implicated in that case were not publicly disciplined, and one of them was even allowed to write the document-retention policy that David B. Duncan, the fired Houston partner in charge of the Enron audit, cited as support for the shredding he ordered.

Had Andersen's management appeared to be vigilant about bringing change, perhaps the Justice Department would have been less eager to prosecute now. Or perhaps one of the many Andersen employees involved in the shredding would have notified senior management when it started, thus perhaps stopping it quickly.

"It is sad about Andersen, because there are thousands of good people there who do not deserve what is going to happen to them," one former federal regulator said yesterday. "But they should have thought about this possibility."

There was plenty of sadness yesterday. "I find it impossible to believe this happened," said Karen Andersen, whose grandfather, Walter, was Arthur Andersen's brother and first partner in the firm when it began in 1913. "They were such a good firm for so long."

One Andersen partner, reached at his desk last night, said auditors were trying to carry on. "We're working like we'll be here," he said. "I guess we're optimistic, or maybe we are naïve. I'm still proud to be associated with this firm. I think the firm should get a chance to survive. It is worth saving."

Andersen's corporate motto, "Think straight, talk straight," was translated from the Norwegian by Arthur Andersen, said Ms. Andersen, who now lives in St. Paul, and works as a publications coordinator for a nonprofit organization. She said it came from her great-grandmother, Marie Kathinka Aaby Andersen, an immigrant from Norway.

Perhaps the Andersen family history provides some hope. Arthur's father nearly died when a ship he was on sank in the Atlantic as he was traveling from Norway to America. He was rescued by the S.S. Missouri and wound up in Chicago. To some, survival for his son's namesake firm would now seem no less miraculous.