Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: L. Adam Latham who wrote (166476)	6/17/2002 1:30:32 PM
From: tcmay	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 186894

Arthur Anderson death sentence too harsh. "Working papers, which are the property of the auditor, are often destroyed after a predetermined period as set forth in their internal policies and procedures. I haven't read the Andersen trial transcripts, but I assume that individuals at Andersen either (1) did not follow the established policies regarding destruction; and/or (2) continued destroying after receiving a legally binding order to stop. But the point is that destruction of working papers is not uncommon." Several things about this Arthur Anderson case come to mind, including some that tangentially relate to Intel (and hence may be on topic for this thread). First, AA has effectively been given a corporate death sentence. This seems overly harsh for the sins of one or a few people in a regional office. There is something wrong with our legal system if an isolated incident--with no strong evidence that this was some kind of AA-wide common practice!--results in a death sentence. It would be as if Intel or AMD were told they could not sell products because some employee in a factory committed some crime. Second, corporations and partnerships are legal fictions anyway. it may be that this death sentence leads many to conclude that bigness is not always better, that better survivability is obtained by smaller, more "cell-like," arrangements. If an accounting, legal, or other large firm can be shut down because of the actions of a rogue individual (or even small group), then bigness is not necessarily better. Third, the legal term for what AA was accused of doing is "spoliation of evidence" (not "spoiliation," which sounds more logical, but "spoliation"--don't ask me why). Related to "knew or should have known" that some item would be sought. The wider application of this idea, which I think is being prefigured by the AA case, has serious implications for all American companies. Many companies have extensive document destruction programs. And, by the way, spoliation charges are not avoided just because a company has a document retention program in place. What AA did in their Houston office may have been stupid, sleazy, even criminal. But the solution is to prosecute those who committed the criminal acts. And possibly prosecute higher-ups if it can be shown that the higher ups ordered the acts. But this was not done. Instead, the actual perps were given a deal by prosecutors in exchange for testifying about what _they_ did. At no point was evidence given that AA as a company or higher ups in the company/partnership ordered the acts. The prosecutors got what they wanted. The public got what it wanted. But this was not justice. --Tim May