KPMG
(LO 1, 2, 3)
KPMG LLP served as the external auditor for some of the largest sub-prime mortgage lenders in the U.S. leading up to and during the housing market crisis of the mid to late-2000s. The audits of two of their largest lending clients, New Century Financial Corporation and Countrywide, ultimately led the firm to settle litigation charges in 2010 for $44.7 and $24 million, respectively. The business model of these two subprime mortgage lenders consisted of providing loans to borrowers with weak credit histories. The business model had begun to fail during 2007, when the economy weakened, borrowers began defaulting, and home prices declined drastically. New Century filed for bankruptcy and Countrywide was purchased by Bank of America, which subsequently suffered massive losses related to business failures at Countrywide.
Just before the housing crash of 2007 put the companies in severe financial crises, KPMG had given both companies unqualified audit opinions. In both cases, KPMG was subsequently accused of violating professional standards, lacking independence, and being negligent. K PMG defended itself by arguing that its audits were not the cause of the financial woes at New century and Countrywide. Rather, the firm contended that the failed business model of the two companies led to investor losses.
a. How does the economic environment affect the litigation risk faced by audit firms?
b. Should auditors be held liable if their client’s business fails or if the financial statements contain a fraud that the auditors did not detect?
c. What defenses do auditors use in response to litigation?
d. What actions can auditors take to minimize litigation exposure?
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Chapter 4 Solutions
Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course List)
- Chelsea Bank provided overdraft facilities to Liverpool Ltd and Manchester & Co. were Liverpool’s auditors. The relevant overdraft facility letters between Chelsea Bank and Liverpool Ltd contained a clause requiring Manchester & Co. to send Chelsea Bank, each year, a copy of the annual audited financial statements.In 2018 Liverpool Ltd was put into receivership with approximately $23.5M owing to Chelsea Bank. Chelsea Bank claimed that, due to massive fraud, Liverpool’s financial statements for the previous years had misstated the financial position of Liverpool and Manchester & Co. had been negligent in not detecting the fraud. Chelsea Bank contended that it had continued to provide the overdraft facilities in reliance on Manchester’s unqualified opinions.Manchester & Co. applied to the court for an order striking out the claim on the grounds that, even if all the facts alleged by Chelsea Bank were true, the claim could not succeed in law because Manchester & Co.…arrow_forwardChelsea Bank provided overdraft facilities to Liverpool Ltd and Manchester & Co. were Liverpool’s auditors. The relevant overdraft facility letters between Chelsea Bank and Liverpool Ltd contained a clause requiring Manchester & Co. to send Chelsea Bank, each year, a copy of the annual audited financial statements.In 2018 Liverpool Ltd was put into receivership with approximately $23.5M owing to Chelsea Bank. Chelsea Bank claimed that, due to massive fraud, Liverpool’s financial statements for the previous years had misstated the financial position of Liverpool and Manchester & Co. had been negligent in not detecting the fraud. Chelsea Bank contended that it had continued to provide the overdraft facilities in reliance on Manchester’s unqualified opinions.Manchester & Co. applied to the court for an order striking out the claim on the grounds that, even if all the facts alleged by Chelsea Bank were true, the claim could not succeed in law because Manchester & Co.…arrow_forwardListed below are a few transactions and events of Melbourn Company. Melbourn Company guarantees the $100,000 debt of a supplier. It is not probable that the supplier will default on the debt. A disgruntled employee is suing Melbourn Company. Legal advisers believe that the company will probably need to pay damages, but the amount cannot be reasonably estimated. Indicate the proper financial reporting for each case.arrow_forward
- 6arrow_forwardHarrington Company was sued by an employee in late 2017. General counsel concluded that there was an 75 percent probability that the company would lose the lawsuit. The range of possible loss is estimated to be $35,000 to $90,000, with no amount in the range more likely than any other. The lawsuit was settled in 2018, with Harrington making a payment of $70,000. Assume that a U.S. based company is issuing securities to foreign investors who require financial statements prepared in accordance with IFRS . Thus, adjustments to convert from U.S. GAAP to IFRS must be made. Ignore income taxes. a. Prepare journal entries for this lawsuit for the years ending December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2018, under (1) U.S. GAAP and (2) IFRS b. Prepare the entries that Harrington would make on the December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2018, conversion worksheets to convert U.S. GAAP balances to IFRS.arrow_forwardYou are the audit partner of John& Co., a large audit firm that is operating in sydney. Your firm audited ABC Ltd, a custom-made products manufacturing company. ABC Ltd declared bankruptcy within six months of receiving an unqualified auditor's opinion on its financial statements for the year ended 31 December 2018. The XYZ bank initiated a court challenge against your firm on the grounds that the bank disbursed a $2,500,000 loan to ABC Ltd in May 2019, but ABC went bankrupt shortly afterwards. The plaintiff alleged that your firm's 2018 audit of ABC was deficient and argued that the auditors failed to uncover that the value of ABC's inventories were substantially lower than reported on the balance sheet. Your audit firm did not issue privity letters to any third party in the past four years. With reference to the principles established in common law, explain whether the XYZ bank is likely to be successfularrow_forward
- Cook, Inc., a manufacturer of tires, has given you its most recent annual report in an effort toobtain a sizable loan. The company is very profitable and appears to have a sound financialposition. Based on a report presented on prime-time television last night, you are aware that Cookis a defendant in several lawsuits related to its defective tires that cause vehicles to overturn. Theinformation presented on television is an example of financial information that isa. Relevantb. Consistentc. Predictabled. Comparablearrow_forward5-92. General Motors FRAUD In March 2006, General Motors (GM) announced that it needed to restate its previous year’s financial statements. Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal describing the restatements include the following: GM, which already faces an SEC probe into its accounting practices, also disclosed that its 10-K report, when filed, will outline a series of accounting mistakes that will force the car maker to restate its earnings from 2000 to the first quarter of 2005. GM also said it was widening by $2 billion the loss it reported for 2005. Many of the other GM problems relate to rebates, or credits, from suppliers. Typically, suppliers offer an upfront payment in exchange for a promise by the customer to buy certain quantities of products over time. Under accounting rules, such rebates cannot be recorded until after the promised purchases are made. GM said it concluded it had mistakenly recorded some of these payments prematurely. The biggest impact was in 2001, when the…arrow_forwardEnron and Arthur Andersen UP Enron was an energy comp any based in Houston, Texas, that made energy trades. It was formed in 1985 with the merger of Houston Natural Gas and lnterNorth. After an aggressive expansion plan that involved risky financing transactions outside the original, fundamental business model of the company, Enron was billions of dollars in debt. Enron concealed this debt through hidden transactions with related-party partnerships, fraudulent accounting, and illegal loans. Enron is considered to be one of the largest and most important financial reporting frauds in history. The company ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2001. One of the reasons that Enron was able to get away with the fraud for some rime was because of a low-quality audit by its external audit firm, Arthur Andersen. Prior to the failure of Enron in 2001, Arthur Andersen had been involved in two other major audit failures. These failed audits, related to frauds at Waste Management (1996) and Sunbeam (1997), should have raised red flags for management and any outside observers that some of the audit firm’s internal quality assurance processes were not working. When the federal government uncovered Enron’s fraud along with the string of poor quality audits at Arthur Andersen, the government forced the audit firm out of business. Internal documentation at Arthur Andersen showed that there were conflicts between the auditors and the audit committee of Enron, and that even though there were many individuals concerned about the accounting and disclosure practices at Enron, nothing was done by Andersen to report these problems. In fact, the leading partner on the audit, David Duncan, actively worked to ensure that Enron’s fraudulent financial reporting went uncovered. It appears that Duncan was motivated by the fact that Arthur Andersen was earning enormous consulting fees on the Enron engagement; Enron was a hugely important client for him personally and for the Houston office of Arthur Andersen. Together, these conflicts of interest clouded his independent judgment and professional skepticism. Around the time that Enron declared bankruptcy in late 2001, Arthur Andersen personnel in the Houston office began aggressively destroying documentation relating to the Enron engagement. This action enabled the federal government to file charges against Arthur Andersen that ultimately led to the downfall of the audit firm. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 was enacted partially in response to the Enron fraud and the revelation of the poor audit conducted by Arthur Andersen, which is why this case is of particular historical relevance. Considering these facts, answer the following questions: a. Members of Enron management were the individuals who perpetrated the financial statement fraud, this, why do you think the auditors were held responsible when they are not the ones actually making the fraudulent journal entries? b. Explain why the consulting fees and importance of Enron to David Duncan and the Houston office of Arthur Andersen might have affected Duncan’s independence, and thus the quality of the audits he supervised. c. Describe the likely users of Enron’s audited financial statements. How were these various user groups likely affected by the fraud? d. How might the sequential list of frauds perpetrated by Arthur Andersen client (Wage Management, Sunbeam, and finally Enron) have affected the decision by the SEC and federal prosecutors to aggressively seek Arthur Andersen’s legal demise?arrow_forward
- Cutler Manufacturing manufactures and distributes specialty piping used in the construction industry. Due to the recent contraction in the commercial construction market, the company has had difficulty servicing its outstanding debt. In particular, debt bearing interest at a stated rate of 6% with 42 remaining payments of $15,000 per month is being considered for restructuring. In spite of this difficulty, the company is not deemed to experiencing financial difficulties such that it would qualify for a troubled debt restructuring. The creditor and the company have identified several alternatives as follows: a. Convey vacant land with a fair market value of $380,000 and a book value of $260,000 to the creditor along with a commitment to make 40 monthly payments of $5,067.60 each. b. Convey vacant land with a fair market value of $380,000 and a book value of $260,000 to the creditor along with a commitment to make 60 monthly payments of $3,000 each. The new debt has a fair value of…arrow_forwardNonearrow_forwardIn April, 2022, Norman Industries sold available-for-sale debt securities that cost $560,000 and received a check from its broker for $795,000. When the check was deposited, the accounting clerk debited cash and credited Available-for-Sale Debt Investments for the full amount. The CFO questioned the entry in December, 2022. If this is an error, what is the proper correcting entry? (Tax rate is 40%.) Group of answer choices Available-for-Sale Debt Investments 795,000 Realized Gain 235,000Retained Earnings-Prior Period Adj. 560,000 Available-for-Sale Debt Investments 235,000 Income Tax Expense 94,000Retained Earnings 141,000 Available-for-Sale Debt Investments 235,000 Realized Gain 235,000 Realized Gain 235,000 Available-for-Sale Debt Investments 235,000arrow_forward
- Auditing: A Risk Based-Approach (MindTap Course L...AccountingISBN:9781337619455Author:Karla M Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. RittenbergPublisher:Cengage LearningBusiness Its Legal Ethical & Global EnvironmentAccountingISBN:9781305224414Author:JENNINGSPublisher:CengageFinancial Reporting, Financial Statement Analysis...FinanceISBN:9781285190907Author:James M. Wahlen, Stephen P. Baginski, Mark BradshawPublisher:Cengage Learning
- Cornerstones of Financial AccountingAccountingISBN:9781337690881Author:Jay Rich, Jeff JonesPublisher:Cengage LearningIntermediate Accounting: Reporting And AnalysisAccountingISBN:9781337788281Author:James M. Wahlen, Jefferson P. Jones, Donald PagachPublisher:Cengage LearningEBK CONTEMPORARY FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTFinanceISBN:9781337514835Author:MOYERPublisher:CENGAGE LEARNING - CONSIGNMENT