Comments on: Decision in Arthur Andersen v. United States

By: Roger Friedman

Roger Friedman — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 02:45:38 +0000

At least AA didn’t have to do its legal work pro se within AEDPA.

By: The Glittering Eye

The Glittering Eye — Tue, 31 May 2005 23:24:33 +0000

Catching my eye: late edition

Today has been so hellaciously busy that the morning run-down got postponed to the afternoon and then to the evening. Before the day gets away I think there are a few things worth a look at: Marc Schulman of American…

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Tue, 31 May 2005 20:19:25 +0000

Phil: If I were in need of an auditor, I wouldn’t hire Andersen. But that is normally a decision that takes place in the free market. AA was already hemorrhaging business as their complicity in the Enron debacle became apparent, but at least they had a shot at turning things around.

Instead, as a result of their conviction, AA was precluded from auditing public companies as a matter of law, and something like 25,000 people lost their jobs. I’m sure many of them recovered, but the conviction no doubt caught hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent people in its maw.

By: phil

phil — Tue, 31 May 2005 18:50:07 +0000

Marc: quite apart from their document-retention policies, Arthur Andersen’s complicity in Enron’s shenanigans proves that they shouldn’t be auditing anyone’s books.

By: Marc Shepherd

Marc Shepherd — Tue, 31 May 2005 17:59:10 +0000

I am reminded of Raymond Donovan’s comment after being exonerated. The former Reagan cabinet member said, “Now, what court do I go to to get my reputation back?”

For Andersen, the answer is no court at all. The firm is for all intents and purposes defunct. It exists as a shell only to defend itself in lawsuits. With all of Andersen’s former clients having found new auditors, it’s hard to see how it could ever recover even a fraction of its former self.