Campaigners march for flats trio
13.03.10
Raising crimial age 'ruled out'
Teenager remanded over harassment
Clegg calls for Afghan judgment
Burglars raid home of war heroine
Take That star checks into rehab
McCanns join run to help charity
Union: BA must end 'needless war'
Tate 'targeted by poison pen note'
At least 30 dead in Afghan blasts
Ads by Google
Frequent Migraines?
Clinical study enrolling patients with severe migraine headaches.
Oneplace: London
Evaluating the performance of your local public services in your area.
1 Tip for a Flat Belly :
Cut down 3 lbs Belly Fat every week just by using this 1 Weird Old Tip.
London Cooking Classes
Create Delicious Recipes With Our Professional Chefs! Book Online Now
Hundreds of campaigners have joined a march and rally in memory of three asylum seekers who leapt from a tower block.
It is understood the trio, named locally as Serguei Serykh, his wife Tatiana and his stepson, had been living in the Red Road flats in Springburn for a short time after arriving from Canada.
An estimated 200 people marched from the flats in Petershill Drive to Glasgow city centre, where a rally was held in Shuttle Street.
The protesters were demanding an end to the "enforced removal" of refugee families and called for a fatal accident inquiry into the three deaths.
Margaret Woods, of the Glasgow Campaign to Welcome Refugees, said after the march: "It was a tragedy when those people jumped and it's been made to seem as though it was a one-off occurrence, don't judge our asylum system by it.
"The point we're making is you do judge the asylum system by the fact that people are so ill and terrified that they jump from 15 floors."
She went on: "The way they get treated here makes things much much worse and some end up in this tragic position. Thousands of people live in this country in fear and it's completely unacceptable."
Robina Qureshi, director of Positive Action in Housing, said: "It was a very strong and united march to remember the family, but also to demand an end to any more enforced removals.
"We demand an end to any more evictions of families because we don't want any more suicides. The march was very united in that we want a fatal accident inquiry."
The UK Border Agency said it had advised the Russian family that arrangements were being made to return them to the country where they had previously been granted protection. A statement issued by the agency after the tragedy said no officers were in the vicinity of the flats when the family died and no "imminent" action to remove them from the UK had been planned.
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
Saturday 13 March 2010
London DAILY TELEGRAPH: "Ernst & Young, Linklaters and Lehman Brothers' London operations played key roles" in illegal accounting...
London at centre of Lehman Brothers 'accounting gimmick'
Ernst & Young, Linklaters and Lehman Brothers' London operations played key roles in the investment bank's attempts to mask $50bn (£33bn) of assets on its balance sheet in the run-up to its eventual implosion in September 2008.
By James Quinn and Sean Farrell
Published: 7:53PM GMT 12 Mar 2010
Comments 11 | Comment on this article
The report found Lehman had to use its European arm to undertake the questionable accounting practices as they were not considered legal in the US Photo: Reuters
The two advisers are under fire for their knowledge of a series of complex transactions known officially within the bank as "Repo 105", but referred to by senior staff as "window dressing" and an "accounting gimmick".
The pair's actions are questioned in court-appointed investigator Anton Valukas's exhaustive report into the bank's collapse, which also found that British bank Barclays received assets it should not have when later buying Lehman's US brokerage business.
Related Articles
'Repo 105' at the heart of Lehman report
Read the key sections of the report
The report also finds that the bank had to use its European arm, based in London, to undertake the questionable accounting practices as they were not considered legal in the US.
Repo 105, the unusual accounting device at the heart of Lehman's downfall, essentially allowed the bank to mask its borrowing at the end of each quarter, decreasing its apparent risk profile to the outside world.
According to the report, the complicated ruse allowed Lehman to claim its assets were $38.6bn lower than they actually were at November 2007. By May 2008, Repo 105 was concealing $50.4bn.
In echoes of Arthur Andersen's role in auditing fraudulent energy giant Enron, Mr Valukas goes so far as to assert that E&Y could face legal claims for "professional malpractice" stemming from a number of negligent actions.
The Wall Street lawyer found that two senior E&Y staff – William Schlich and Hillary Hansen, who are both still with the firm – failed to take on board the comments of Matthew Lee, then a senior vice-president, about Repo 105.
In May 2008, Mr Lee wrote to management informing them of his concerns about off-balance sheet accounting practices. A month later, on June 12, when interviewed by the E&Y auditors, Mr Lee said Lehman moved $50bn from its balance sheet at the end of the second quarter for a few days.
In a subsequent meeting with Lehman's audit committee, Mr Schlich did not tell them about the whistleblower's concerns, despite the committee's request that it hear all his allegations, the report states.
Mr Valukas argues that there is the potential for viable legal claims against the accounting firm for a number of failings. An E&Y spokesman said its last full audit of the bank was for the year to November 2007, and that it believes Mr Valukas made no findings in his report that Lehman's books were "improperly valued or accounted for incorrectly" in those statements.
The extensive report also reveals that Repo 105 was approved by Linklaters in London, which in 2006 wrote an opinion letter stating that the required transactions were allowed under English law.
A Linklaters spokesman said: "The Examiner…does not criticise those opinions or suggest they were wrong or improper."
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
Ernst & Young, Linklaters and Lehman Brothers' London operations played key roles in the investment bank's attempts to mask $50bn (£33bn) of assets on its balance sheet in the run-up to its eventual implosion in September 2008.
By James Quinn and Sean Farrell
Published: 7:53PM GMT 12 Mar 2010
Comments 11 | Comment on this article
The report found Lehman had to use its European arm to undertake the questionable accounting practices as they were not considered legal in the US Photo: Reuters
The two advisers are under fire for their knowledge of a series of complex transactions known officially within the bank as "Repo 105", but referred to by senior staff as "window dressing" and an "accounting gimmick".
The pair's actions are questioned in court-appointed investigator Anton Valukas's exhaustive report into the bank's collapse, which also found that British bank Barclays received assets it should not have when later buying Lehman's US brokerage business.
Related Articles
'Repo 105' at the heart of Lehman report
Read the key sections of the report
The report also finds that the bank had to use its European arm, based in London, to undertake the questionable accounting practices as they were not considered legal in the US.
Repo 105, the unusual accounting device at the heart of Lehman's downfall, essentially allowed the bank to mask its borrowing at the end of each quarter, decreasing its apparent risk profile to the outside world.
According to the report, the complicated ruse allowed Lehman to claim its assets were $38.6bn lower than they actually were at November 2007. By May 2008, Repo 105 was concealing $50.4bn.
In echoes of Arthur Andersen's role in auditing fraudulent energy giant Enron, Mr Valukas goes so far as to assert that E&Y could face legal claims for "professional malpractice" stemming from a number of negligent actions.
The Wall Street lawyer found that two senior E&Y staff – William Schlich and Hillary Hansen, who are both still with the firm – failed to take on board the comments of Matthew Lee, then a senior vice-president, about Repo 105.
In May 2008, Mr Lee wrote to management informing them of his concerns about off-balance sheet accounting practices. A month later, on June 12, when interviewed by the E&Y auditors, Mr Lee said Lehman moved $50bn from its balance sheet at the end of the second quarter for a few days.
In a subsequent meeting with Lehman's audit committee, Mr Schlich did not tell them about the whistleblower's concerns, despite the committee's request that it hear all his allegations, the report states.
Mr Valukas argues that there is the potential for viable legal claims against the accounting firm for a number of failings. An E&Y spokesman said its last full audit of the bank was for the year to November 2007, and that it believes Mr Valukas made no findings in his report that Lehman's books were "improperly valued or accounted for incorrectly" in those statements.
The extensive report also reveals that Repo 105 was approved by Linklaters in London, which in 2006 wrote an opinion letter stating that the required transactions were allowed under English law.
A Linklaters spokesman said: "The Examiner…does not criticise those opinions or suggest they were wrong or improper."
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
London law firm Linklaters set to face some of the music for its 'advice' giving go ahead to multi £Billion theft by Lehman Bros scam perpetrator
From The Times
March 13, 2010
Linklaters and Ernst & Young face action over Lehman Brothers collapse
Alexandra Frean, Alex Spence
15 COMMENTS
RECOMMEND? (8)
Two of the City’s biggest names were battling last night to protect their reputations after an explosive new report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers threatened both with potentially crippling lawsuits.
Linklaters, one of the world’s premier law firms, and Ernst & Young, the accountancy giant, were both criticised in an investigation that accused the latter of “professional malpractice”.
It has emerged that a whistleblower at Lehman, whose collapse in 2008 defined the credit crunch, repeatedly warned auditors about the use of acounting methods that removed debt from its balance sheet.
Matthew Lee, a senior vice-president at the firm, sent a letter to managers on May 16, 2008, four months before the bank’s collapse. He warned that the use of “Repo 105” transactions to conceal the parlous state of the company’s balance sheet could be unethical.
RELATED LINKS
Wacky world of US finance helped hide loans
British law firm cleared way for Lehman cover-up
A slap in the face for Lehman's Dick Fuld
Ernst & Young, Lehman’s auditor, investigated the claims and were advised by Mr Lee less than a month later that Lehman used $50 billion of Repo 105 transactions temporarily to move bad loans — which it classes as assets — off their balance sheet, effectively concealing much of its debt. A series of lawsuits is expected after the report into the collapse accused the accountant of taking no action.
The report is by Anton Valukas, of Jenner & Block, who was appointed as examiner by the judge handling the bankruptcy to investigate any potential fraud or mismanagement. His 2,200- page report examines in detail the actions that led to Lehman’s demise.
When Lehman filed for bankrupcty on September 15, 2008, with about $600 billion in debt, its collapse contributed to the freezing of credit markets worldwide and to the global recession.
The Valukas report paints a damning picture of the bank’s final two years, branding it a hothouse institution so obsessed with growth that senior executives said openly that they did not want to hear “too much detail” about the risks they might face in case it held them back.
While Mr Vulakas found that Dick Fuld, Lehman’s chief executive, and other senior executives may have been unwise and shown poor judgment in their attitude to risk, he concluded that their actions in this regard were not so “reckless and irrational” as to give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty.
But his finding that they may have a case to answer on the Repo 105 transactions is expected to fuel litigation against the bank and its accountants.
Most notably, the report concludes that Ernst & Young was wrong to agree to the bank’s misleading accounts, knowing what it did about the Repo 105 transactions.
“Colorable claims exist that Ernst & Young did not meet professional standards, both in investigating Lee’s allegations and in connection with its audit and review of Lehman’s financial statements,” the examiner said.
He said “colorable” meant a claim for which there was enough credible evidence to support a finding in court. As for Mr Fuld, he was “at least grossly negligent” for allowing the firm’s continued use of Repo 105 transactions in this way, Mr Valukas concludes.
“Unbeknownst to the investing public, rating agencies, government regulators, and Lehman’s board of directors, Lehman reverse engineered the firm’s net leverage ratio for public consumption,” Mr Valukas states.
Mr Fuld’s lawyer said last night that the former Lehman boss did not know what the Repo 105 transactions were or their accounting treatment.
The report also names Christopher O’Meara, Lehman’s head of risk, and two former chief financial officers, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt. The report reveals that they were also warned by Martin Kelly, Lehman’s former global financial controller, that the lack of economic substance to Repo 105 transactions meant “reputational risk” to Lehman if their use became known.
The report also reveals that Linklaters approved the Repo 105 transactions for Lehman, after the bank was unable to find any US lawyers willing to do so.
A spokesman for Linklaters confirmed that the firm gave Lehman its legal opinion on several transactions, but said it was not aware of any “facts or circumstances that would justify any criticism”. He added: “The examiner, who did not contact the firm during his investigations, does not criticise those opinions or say or suggest that they were wrong or improper.
Mark Molumphy, a partner at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, a San Francisco firm that is representing local authorities in California that lost more than $200 million after Lehman Brothers collapsed, said that the report unveiled a lot of new evidence in support of his clients’ claims — particularly internal documents and e-mails.
A court hearing on April 1 will be held to decide whether all of the documents referred to in the report can be made public. At present they are being held back on legal technicalities.
Mr Molumphy said his firm would go to court on Monday to amend its claim to include fresh evidence uncovered by Mr Valukas’s investigation.
A separate class action case brought by a Scottish pension fund in New York is also likely to be strengthened by the findings. The Lothian pension fund, which handles £3 billion in retirement funds belonging to local govenrment workers in Edinburgh, is acting as lead claimant on behalf of investors that lost money on Lehman-related sub-prime investments. Its lawyers declined to comment last night.
As for Ernst & Young, it could now face attempts by investors to claw back the fees it pocketed for auditing Lehman Brothers’ books — $31 million in 2007 alone — in addition to claims for substantial damages.
A spokesman for E&Y said: “Lehman’s bankruptcy, which occurred in September 2008, was the result of a series of unprecedented adverse events in the financial markets. Our last audit of the company was for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2007. Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and we remain of that view.”
Ernst & Young declined to comment further. Privately, the firm is understood to be determined to defend itself against any follow-on action. It will be conscious of the destruction of Arthur Andersen, an erstwhile rival as a global auditor, by its involvement in the fall of energy company Enron.
Full report: http://lehmanreport.jenner.com
PRINT
EMAIL
YOUR COMMENTS
15 Comments
(Displaying 1-10)
Order By:
Newest first Oldest first Most recommended
K David wrote:
E&Y need to go down.
And the ratings agencies with them.
March 13, 2010 3:04 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (1)
ashok lal wrote:
One cannot even say that the auditors were asleep at the wheel.
March 13, 2010 2:51 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
A NON wrote:
I can't imagine these 2 firms offering sufficient amounts to settle out of court with the poor investors. I expect the mother of all court battles, 2 battling for their survival and thousands battling for their life savings.
March 13, 2010 2:47 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
Sian Brown wrote:
And who is Ernst & Young's main law firm??? You guessed it... Linklaters... doesn't smell too good :(
March 13, 2010 2:21 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (3)
Simon Lambert wrote:
The problem is that the accountancy profession is self-regulated.
Self-regulation equals no regulation.
Auditors/accountants will sign-off on almost anything----as long as their fees are paid.
We need transparent independent regulation. However, in my opinion it is now too late: the whole system is blown-----there are just too many Madoff's, Enrons, MG/Rovers, Lehmans, Worldcom etc etc etc losses that have not yet been revealed for the system (Capitalism) to absorb.
March 13, 2010 11:13 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (4)
Pat Sheehan wrote:
The Law is to be blamed in this case.
It is outrageous that we allow the same firm to audit the same large company time after time.
We've had too many cases like this one where it has been plain to see that the pickings for, say, a bank audit, have been too huge for the auditors' integrity to be a realistic expectation.
I've often wondered how often has your ordinary lad from the big accountancy firm had to choose between keeping in with a crooked client or returning to his firm to face the sack (for some other reason of course).
We badly need a law to prohibit the same firm from auditing the same large company within, say, a five year timespan.
And I'm afraid I've got to add that we should also legislate to prevent audit firms from offering other services.
March 13, 2010 2:49 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (5)
Mark Elliott wrote:
Please people let us be clear here there is a very important distinction between accountants and auditors. Those who can account do those that can't audit. Auditing is the last refuge for failed accountants. They are supposed to be the accounting police but in my career as a senior financial professional I have not seen one who could ask the crucial relevant questions necessary for a proper professional audit. Too often they rely on the work of teams of newly graduated staff who haven’t a clue what they are doing. The managers and partners who supervise are only interested in collecting their huge fees and keeping the client happy so they get keep the job next year. A good accountant can outwit an auditor any day. There is no contest it's like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s why they are completely socially worthless. This is an opinion I have shared with my auditor colleagues on more than one occasion.
March 13, 2010 1:05 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (11)
Bill Williams wrote:
Unfortunately for Mr Fuld, Sarbanes Oxley ensured he can't plead ignorance of the repo 105 transactions. Good.
March 13, 2010 12:47 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
Lancelot Stilwell wrote:
Why has it taken so long for the Lehman collapse to hit the headlines? Read the book "A colossal failure of common sense" published in 2009, and learn all
March 13, 2010 12:42 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
John Harry wrote:
I have read that Lehman first shopped the large American law firms for this opinion and were unsuccessful. That tells me that this opinion must have been simply beyond the pale. Most of the large American law firms will do about anything if the price is high enough. If true, that would make Linklaters the most unethical law firm in the world.
March 13, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (4)
1 2 >> Last
HAVE YOUR SAY
Would you like to post a comment? Please register or log in
Login
Terms and conditions
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
March 13, 2010
Linklaters and Ernst & Young face action over Lehman Brothers collapse
Alexandra Frean, Alex Spence
15 COMMENTS
RECOMMEND? (8)
Two of the City’s biggest names were battling last night to protect their reputations after an explosive new report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers threatened both with potentially crippling lawsuits.
Linklaters, one of the world’s premier law firms, and Ernst & Young, the accountancy giant, were both criticised in an investigation that accused the latter of “professional malpractice”.
It has emerged that a whistleblower at Lehman, whose collapse in 2008 defined the credit crunch, repeatedly warned auditors about the use of acounting methods that removed debt from its balance sheet.
Matthew Lee, a senior vice-president at the firm, sent a letter to managers on May 16, 2008, four months before the bank’s collapse. He warned that the use of “Repo 105” transactions to conceal the parlous state of the company’s balance sheet could be unethical.
RELATED LINKS
Wacky world of US finance helped hide loans
British law firm cleared way for Lehman cover-up
A slap in the face for Lehman's Dick Fuld
Ernst & Young, Lehman’s auditor, investigated the claims and were advised by Mr Lee less than a month later that Lehman used $50 billion of Repo 105 transactions temporarily to move bad loans — which it classes as assets — off their balance sheet, effectively concealing much of its debt. A series of lawsuits is expected after the report into the collapse accused the accountant of taking no action.
The report is by Anton Valukas, of Jenner & Block, who was appointed as examiner by the judge handling the bankruptcy to investigate any potential fraud or mismanagement. His 2,200- page report examines in detail the actions that led to Lehman’s demise.
When Lehman filed for bankrupcty on September 15, 2008, with about $600 billion in debt, its collapse contributed to the freezing of credit markets worldwide and to the global recession.
The Valukas report paints a damning picture of the bank’s final two years, branding it a hothouse institution so obsessed with growth that senior executives said openly that they did not want to hear “too much detail” about the risks they might face in case it held them back.
While Mr Vulakas found that Dick Fuld, Lehman’s chief executive, and other senior executives may have been unwise and shown poor judgment in their attitude to risk, he concluded that their actions in this regard were not so “reckless and irrational” as to give rise to a breach of fiduciary duty.
But his finding that they may have a case to answer on the Repo 105 transactions is expected to fuel litigation against the bank and its accountants.
Most notably, the report concludes that Ernst & Young was wrong to agree to the bank’s misleading accounts, knowing what it did about the Repo 105 transactions.
“Colorable claims exist that Ernst & Young did not meet professional standards, both in investigating Lee’s allegations and in connection with its audit and review of Lehman’s financial statements,” the examiner said.
He said “colorable” meant a claim for which there was enough credible evidence to support a finding in court. As for Mr Fuld, he was “at least grossly negligent” for allowing the firm’s continued use of Repo 105 transactions in this way, Mr Valukas concludes.
“Unbeknownst to the investing public, rating agencies, government regulators, and Lehman’s board of directors, Lehman reverse engineered the firm’s net leverage ratio for public consumption,” Mr Valukas states.
Mr Fuld’s lawyer said last night that the former Lehman boss did not know what the Repo 105 transactions were or their accounting treatment.
The report also names Christopher O’Meara, Lehman’s head of risk, and two former chief financial officers, Erin Callan and Ian Lowitt. The report reveals that they were also warned by Martin Kelly, Lehman’s former global financial controller, that the lack of economic substance to Repo 105 transactions meant “reputational risk” to Lehman if their use became known.
The report also reveals that Linklaters approved the Repo 105 transactions for Lehman, after the bank was unable to find any US lawyers willing to do so.
A spokesman for Linklaters confirmed that the firm gave Lehman its legal opinion on several transactions, but said it was not aware of any “facts or circumstances that would justify any criticism”. He added: “The examiner, who did not contact the firm during his investigations, does not criticise those opinions or say or suggest that they were wrong or improper.
Mark Molumphy, a partner at Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy, a San Francisco firm that is representing local authorities in California that lost more than $200 million after Lehman Brothers collapsed, said that the report unveiled a lot of new evidence in support of his clients’ claims — particularly internal documents and e-mails.
A court hearing on April 1 will be held to decide whether all of the documents referred to in the report can be made public. At present they are being held back on legal technicalities.
Mr Molumphy said his firm would go to court on Monday to amend its claim to include fresh evidence uncovered by Mr Valukas’s investigation.
A separate class action case brought by a Scottish pension fund in New York is also likely to be strengthened by the findings. The Lothian pension fund, which handles £3 billion in retirement funds belonging to local govenrment workers in Edinburgh, is acting as lead claimant on behalf of investors that lost money on Lehman-related sub-prime investments. Its lawyers declined to comment last night.
As for Ernst & Young, it could now face attempts by investors to claw back the fees it pocketed for auditing Lehman Brothers’ books — $31 million in 2007 alone — in addition to claims for substantial damages.
A spokesman for E&Y said: “Lehman’s bankruptcy, which occurred in September 2008, was the result of a series of unprecedented adverse events in the financial markets. Our last audit of the company was for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2007. Our opinion indicated that Lehman’s financial statements for that year were fairly presented in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and we remain of that view.”
Ernst & Young declined to comment further. Privately, the firm is understood to be determined to defend itself against any follow-on action. It will be conscious of the destruction of Arthur Andersen, an erstwhile rival as a global auditor, by its involvement in the fall of energy company Enron.
Full report: http://lehmanreport.jenner.com
YOUR COMMENTS
15 Comments
(Displaying 1-10)
Order By:
Newest first Oldest first Most recommended
K David wrote:
E&Y need to go down.
And the ratings agencies with them.
March 13, 2010 3:04 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (1)
ashok lal wrote:
One cannot even say that the auditors were asleep at the wheel.
March 13, 2010 2:51 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
A NON wrote:
I can't imagine these 2 firms offering sufficient amounts to settle out of court with the poor investors. I expect the mother of all court battles, 2 battling for their survival and thousands battling for their life savings.
March 13, 2010 2:47 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
Sian Brown wrote:
And who is Ernst & Young's main law firm??? You guessed it... Linklaters... doesn't smell too good :(
March 13, 2010 2:21 PM GMT
RECOMMEND? (3)
Simon Lambert wrote:
The problem is that the accountancy profession is self-regulated.
Self-regulation equals no regulation.
Auditors/accountants will sign-off on almost anything----as long as their fees are paid.
We need transparent independent regulation. However, in my opinion it is now too late: the whole system is blown-----there are just too many Madoff's, Enrons, MG/Rovers, Lehmans, Worldcom etc etc etc losses that have not yet been revealed for the system (Capitalism) to absorb.
March 13, 2010 11:13 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (4)
Pat Sheehan wrote:
The Law is to be blamed in this case.
It is outrageous that we allow the same firm to audit the same large company time after time.
We've had too many cases like this one where it has been plain to see that the pickings for, say, a bank audit, have been too huge for the auditors' integrity to be a realistic expectation.
I've often wondered how often has your ordinary lad from the big accountancy firm had to choose between keeping in with a crooked client or returning to his firm to face the sack (for some other reason of course).
We badly need a law to prohibit the same firm from auditing the same large company within, say, a five year timespan.
And I'm afraid I've got to add that we should also legislate to prevent audit firms from offering other services.
March 13, 2010 2:49 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (5)
Mark Elliott wrote:
Please people let us be clear here there is a very important distinction between accountants and auditors. Those who can account do those that can't audit. Auditing is the last refuge for failed accountants. They are supposed to be the accounting police but in my career as a senior financial professional I have not seen one who could ask the crucial relevant questions necessary for a proper professional audit. Too often they rely on the work of teams of newly graduated staff who haven’t a clue what they are doing. The managers and partners who supervise are only interested in collecting their huge fees and keeping the client happy so they get keep the job next year. A good accountant can outwit an auditor any day. There is no contest it's like shooting fish in a barrel. That’s why they are completely socially worthless. This is an opinion I have shared with my auditor colleagues on more than one occasion.
March 13, 2010 1:05 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (11)
Bill Williams wrote:
Unfortunately for Mr Fuld, Sarbanes Oxley ensured he can't plead ignorance of the repo 105 transactions. Good.
March 13, 2010 12:47 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
Lancelot Stilwell wrote:
Why has it taken so long for the Lehman collapse to hit the headlines? Read the book "A colossal failure of common sense" published in 2009, and learn all
March 13, 2010 12:42 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (2)
John Harry wrote:
I have read that Lehman first shopped the large American law firms for this opinion and were unsuccessful. That tells me that this opinion must have been simply beyond the pale. Most of the large American law firms will do about anything if the price is high enough. If true, that would make Linklaters the most unethical law firm in the world.
March 13, 2010 12:33 AM GMT
RECOMMEND? (4)
1 2 >> Last
HAVE YOUR SAY
Would you like to post a comment? Please register or log in
Login
Terms and conditions
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
Girl, 13, faces criminal charge in school bullying case
Girl, 13, faces criminal charge in school bullying case
Girl arrested Sunday after another 13-year-old complained of being harassed to the point where she didn't want to go to school
Share with friends
Print or License
Recommend | 52 Times
Article Comments
St. Thomas, Ont. — The Canadian Press
Published on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 11:04AM EST
Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 11:05AM EST
A 13-year-old girl has been charged with criminal harassment following allegations of ongoing bullying at a St. Thomas, Ont., elementary school.
The girl was arrested Sunday after another 13-year-old complained of being harassed to the point where she didn't want to go to school.
The alleged victim told police that when she did go to school she was afraid she would get assaulted.
St. Thomas police say the alleged bully would take the girl's belongings and give them to other people.
The accused can't be named under Youth Criminal Justice Act, nor can the school be named in order to protect the identity of the victim.
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
Girl arrested Sunday after another 13-year-old complained of being harassed to the point where she didn't want to go to school
Share with friends
Print or License
Recommend | 52 Times
Article Comments
St. Thomas, Ont. — The Canadian Press
Published on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 11:04AM EST
Last updated on Tuesday, Mar. 09, 2010 11:05AM EST
A 13-year-old girl has been charged with criminal harassment following allegations of ongoing bullying at a St. Thomas, Ont., elementary school.
The girl was arrested Sunday after another 13-year-old complained of being harassed to the point where she didn't want to go to school.
The alleged victim told police that when she did go to school she was afraid she would get assaulted.
St. Thomas police say the alleged bully would take the girl's belongings and give them to other people.
The accused can't be named under Youth Criminal Justice Act, nor can the school be named in order to protect the identity of the victim.
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
Sack the Children's Commissioner, says James Bulger's mother
Sack the Children's Commissioner, says James Bulger's mother
The mother of James Bulger has called for the Children’s Commissioner to be sacked for “insensitive” comments about her son’s murder.
By Laura Donnelly
Published: 5:12PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
Denise Fergus expressed outrage after Dr Maggie Atkinson, who took up the post only two weeks ago, described the toddler’s killing as “unpleasant” and said his killers should never have been prosecuted.
In an interview published in The Times on Saturday, Dr Atkinson called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12, meaning Jon Venables and Robert Thompson would never have stood trial.
Related Articles
Jamie Bulger's killers were too young to be tried
She also described the killing of toddler James as “exceptionally unpleasant” and said the fact that a little boy “ended up dead is not something the nation can easily forget”.
Hours after she said the killers should not have been prosecuted, her proposal to raise the age of criminality was rejected outright by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and criticised by a former senior judge.
Mrs Fergus expressed horror at the comments made by Dr Atkinson, which the bereaved mother described as “twisted and insensitive”.
Mrs Fergus said: “To describe the murder of James as 'unpleasant’ is an insult to his memory, and a downright lie.
“To say that James 'ended up dead’ is callous and almost makes it sound like an accident. I am furious about the way she has described his murder.”
Mrs Fergus said the first duty of the Children’s Commissioner should be to stand up for innocent little children murdered by “evil monsters” whatever their age. She called for Dr Atkinson to apologise for her comments, and said she should then resign or be sacked.
The Commissioner issued a statement on Saturday saying she wished “to be clear and to put into context my views on such terrible atrocities”.
While she did not retract her original comments she said that children who had carried out terrible crimes and were a danger to themselves and others should still be contained in “secure settings” – as had been the case with Venables and Thompson.
She added: “Children who carry out such atrocities and other serious offences need to understand the severity of their actions. They should undertake intense programmes appropriate to their age in secure facilities where they are helped to make positive and lasting changes to their behaviour.”
In the interview, Dr Atkinson had said that politicians should put the needs of children first and not allow themselves to be so influenced by the views of victims’ relatives.
Calling for a change in the law, she said even the most “hardened” of youngsters who have committed serious crimes were “not beyond being frightened”.
“The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 – that’s too low, it should certainly be moved up to 12; in some European countries it is 14,” she said.
In the “clarification” later issued, Dr Atkinson repeated her earlier view that “The statistics show that we are in danger of criminalising too many children and young people by locking them up.”
Rejecting her proposal to change the age of criminality, the MoJ said that children aged 10 could differentiate between “bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing”, and also took issue with her description of the statistics.
A spokesman said: “Custody for under-18s is always a last resort and is only used for the most serious, persistent and violent offenders. Only 3 per cent of young offenders who admit or are convicted of an offence receive a custodial sentence.”
Lady Justice Butler Sloss, retired President of the Family Division of the High Court, described Dr Atkinson’s proposal to change the age of criminality as “unworkable”.
The former senior judge said that while she personally had sympathy with the Children’s Commissioner’s views, the public would not accept such changes from any government.
On Thursday, Mrs Fergus met Justice Secretary Jack Straw to discuss Venables’s return to custody. Reports have claimed Venables is being investigated over allegations of child pornography, but Mr Straw refused to confirm the details of why he was returned to prison.
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
The mother of James Bulger has called for the Children’s Commissioner to be sacked for “insensitive” comments about her son’s murder.
By Laura Donnelly
Published: 5:12PM GMT 13 Mar 2010
Denise Fergus expressed outrage after Dr Maggie Atkinson, who took up the post only two weeks ago, described the toddler’s killing as “unpleasant” and said his killers should never have been prosecuted.
In an interview published in The Times on Saturday, Dr Atkinson called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12, meaning Jon Venables and Robert Thompson would never have stood trial.
Related Articles
Jamie Bulger's killers were too young to be tried
She also described the killing of toddler James as “exceptionally unpleasant” and said the fact that a little boy “ended up dead is not something the nation can easily forget”.
Hours after she said the killers should not have been prosecuted, her proposal to raise the age of criminality was rejected outright by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and criticised by a former senior judge.
Mrs Fergus expressed horror at the comments made by Dr Atkinson, which the bereaved mother described as “twisted and insensitive”.
Mrs Fergus said: “To describe the murder of James as 'unpleasant’ is an insult to his memory, and a downright lie.
“To say that James 'ended up dead’ is callous and almost makes it sound like an accident. I am furious about the way she has described his murder.”
Mrs Fergus said the first duty of the Children’s Commissioner should be to stand up for innocent little children murdered by “evil monsters” whatever their age. She called for Dr Atkinson to apologise for her comments, and said she should then resign or be sacked.
The Commissioner issued a statement on Saturday saying she wished “to be clear and to put into context my views on such terrible atrocities”.
While she did not retract her original comments she said that children who had carried out terrible crimes and were a danger to themselves and others should still be contained in “secure settings” – as had been the case with Venables and Thompson.
She added: “Children who carry out such atrocities and other serious offences need to understand the severity of their actions. They should undertake intense programmes appropriate to their age in secure facilities where they are helped to make positive and lasting changes to their behaviour.”
In the interview, Dr Atkinson had said that politicians should put the needs of children first and not allow themselves to be so influenced by the views of victims’ relatives.
Calling for a change in the law, she said even the most “hardened” of youngsters who have committed serious crimes were “not beyond being frightened”.
“The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 – that’s too low, it should certainly be moved up to 12; in some European countries it is 14,” she said.
In the “clarification” later issued, Dr Atkinson repeated her earlier view that “The statistics show that we are in danger of criminalising too many children and young people by locking them up.”
Rejecting her proposal to change the age of criminality, the MoJ said that children aged 10 could differentiate between “bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing”, and also took issue with her description of the statistics.
A spokesman said: “Custody for under-18s is always a last resort and is only used for the most serious, persistent and violent offenders. Only 3 per cent of young offenders who admit or are convicted of an offence receive a custodial sentence.”
Lady Justice Butler Sloss, retired President of the Family Division of the High Court, described Dr Atkinson’s proposal to change the age of criminality as “unworkable”.
The former senior judge said that while she personally had sympathy with the Children’s Commissioner’s views, the public would not accept such changes from any government.
On Thursday, Mrs Fergus met Justice Secretary Jack Straw to discuss Venables’s return to custody. Reports have claimed Venables is being investigated over allegations of child pornography, but Mr Straw refused to confirm the details of why he was returned to prison.
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
What is criminal liability?
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
________________________________
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
By©the Editor
LAWREADER 2010
Launched at 1820 GMT on Saturday 13 March 2010 from London UK to serve as an access point for materials about laws. UK laws and international laws. Most importantly about the ethics and the morality and the universality of the laws. What is and what should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)