AllBestEssays.com - All Best Essays, Term Papers and Book Report
Search

A Letter from Prison Case Analysis ‎

Essay by   •  December 23, 2012  •  Case Study  •  1,678 Words (7 Pages)  •  12,866 Views

Essay Preview: A Letter from Prison Case Analysis ‎

Report this essay
Page 1 of 7

A Letter from Prison Case Analysis ‎

This case is mostly about the Accounting Fraud, here it has pointed to the Richard who was the ‎executive of a company named Computer Associates. The company sells software products ‎which usually ‎have license last for a period of time. The company has a "sales-driven-culture" ‎which is ‎‎"the more you sell, the more commissions you will get". Richard was the head of Sale ‎Department; his responsible was to keep an eye on ‎things like when the contracts are signed and ‎when those payments are assured. It seems that he ‎faced some problem on his job because he ‎was put in jail. The accountant department had recorded ‎the sales in the current quarter while ‎these sales should be recorded in the next quarter that took ‎place at the fourth quarter of 1998 ‎and the second quarter of 2001. According the evidence and the ‎investigation of prosecutors, the ‎action account department has taken was not following the GAAP. ‎However, to the word of ‎Richard himself, this way of accounting was not a really big deal like the ‎WorldCom bankrupt or ‎Enron bankrupt. And he is also very confident to continue developing his ‎career in the future ‎after he got out of jail.‎

‎1. How serious were Stephen Richards' actions? Why? ‎

‎ The Action of Stephen Richards's was really serious; he manipulate Computer Associate's ‎quarter end ‎cutoff to align CA's financial reported results with the market expectations without ‎considering the Generally ‎Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and he didn't pay attention to ‎their financial reporting responsibilities. Based on the U.S. ‎Securities and Exchange ‎Commissions, CA's executives including Richards prolonged the fiscal quarter; ‎‎worked with and ‎allowed subordinates to negotiate and obtain contracts after the quarter ended, thoughtlessly ‎disregarding the fact that, CA would improperly recognize the revenue from ‎those contracts, and ‎failed to alert CA's Finance or Sales Accounting Department that CA salespersons ‎that reported ‎to Richards were obtaining contracts with backdated signatures dates after quarter ‎end." ‎

Richard's actions led to "exceedingly aggressive accounting practices" it boosted ‎CA's ‎reported ‎earnings and the managerial use of discretion to greatly influence reported ‎earnings ‎was not only used ‎by Richards', but it become as a normal practice in all over the ‎company. Some manager said about CA's fraud "Like a team ‎that plays on after the final whistle ‎has ‎blown, Computer Associates straggle was continued until achieving the targeted goal and ‎determined sale level.‎

Richard on his letter mentioned that, he himself and the CEO applied significant pressures on ‎their team to ‎meet the goals which were set for them, also Richard wrote that, performance ‎was ‎measured by internal goals based on the expectation set by outside parties, ‎analyst ‎community, specifically to meet Wall Street quarterly per-share earnings estimates, "and ‎this was thought as a key to keeping ‎a company's stock price rising." Richards with the CEO ‎allegedly had discusion routinely and ‎conferred with each other and with Zar (CFO) during the ‎week following the end of fiscal periods, ‎and also during the "flash period", the three business ‎days after the end of fiscal quarter, to ‎know‎ whether CA had earned sufficient revenue to meet ‎the projections, then the decision to ‎closed CA's books only after assured that CA had generated ‎enough revenue to meet the ‎quarterly projections, this method, that was sometimes known as ‎the "35-day month" ‎or the "three-day window", was not in accordance to the GAAP and caused ‎in the filing of materially false financial ‎statements. The goal of the 35-day month was to have ‎the give the chance CA to report that it met or exceed its ‎projected quarterly revenue and ‎earnings when, in truth, it had not. Referring to the Scheme to ‎Defraud, Richard guided the CA ‎sales managers and other subordinate to negotiate and finalize additional ‎contract‎/agreements, ‎which were backdated to cover the fact that the agreements had been finalized ‎after that ‎quarter.‎

As result, CA by purpose recorded and reported in the earlier quarter revenue associated ‎with ‎the backdated agreements. Stephen Richard actions are highly serious because he had ‎knowledge ‎of the wrongdoings and he was in the position to report it, but he didn't report. ‎Richards' and other CA's executives action seriously victimized the shareholders as they ‎suffered enormous losses ‎once the practices were revealed. Therefore, "Richard was known to ‎be guilty."‎

‎2. If Computer Associates achieved the same financial results through GAAP flexibility, ‎does your ‎answer to question 1 change? ‎

Probably not, with the consideration of GAAP the risk of manipulation was that CA may had ‎more likely made ‎reporting mistake, whic would lead to legal problems and huge losses. As long ‎as the CA's ‎executives including Richards had the purpose of wrongdoing actions they would ‎cause massive ‎losses to the shareholders of the company and to the SEC. Although such ‎manipulations and fraud ‎resulted CA to payback " Millions of Dolor for the purposes of ‎compensating shareholders for losses caused ‎out of the company's criminal conduct." ‎monitoring that, the investigation and evidence on ‎Computer Associates shows that the CA didn't ‎make false transaction, all actual transaction and ‎business

...

...

Download as:   txt (11.1 Kb)   pdf (133.5 Kb)   docx (13.1 Kb)  
Continue for 6 more pages »
Only available on AllBestEssays.com