Published March 2011 in The ESOP Associationâs ESOP Report
Rob Edwards addresses Stock Drop Case updates and the IRS Notice clarifying the meaning of âReadily Tradableâ employer securities.
Published March 2011 in The ESOP Associationâs ESOP Report
Rob Edwards addresses Stock Drop Case updates and the IRS Notice clarifying the meaning of âReadily Tradableâ employer securities.
C. Lee Lott - Baker Donelson Employee (Counsel/Advisor To Mississippi Governo...VogelDenise
Â
C. Lee Lott - Baker Donelson Employee (Counsel/Advisor To Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour)
Provides information as to the REASONS why the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS and CONGRESSIONAL COMPLAINTS Filed by Vogel Denise Newsome are being OBSTRUCTED from being PROSECUTED!
Garretson Resolution Group appears to be FRONTING Firm for United States President Barack Obama and Legal Counsel/Advisor (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz) which has submitted a SLAPP Complaint to OneWebHosting.com in efforts of PREVENTING the PUBLIC/WORLD from knowing of its and President Barack Obama's ROLE in CONSPIRACIES leveled against Vogel Denise Newsome in EXPOSING the TRUTH behind the 911 DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS, COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT violations and other crimes of United States Government Officials. Information that United States President Barack Obama, The Garretson Resolution Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, and United States Congress, etc. do NOT want the PUBLIC/WORLD to see. Information of PUBLIC Interest!
This webinar is for the lawyer -or anyone else- who wants to brush up on the latest issues and strategies to be aware of regarding legal ethics and best practices. The panelists discuss recent and important case law in the area and explain how those decisions can have real-world impact on the situations you may be involved in. Among others, the panel will address the following Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7-Conflict of Interest: Current Clients; Rule 1.8-Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules; Rule 3.8 - Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor; and Rule 4.4(a) Respect for Rights of Third Persons.
Part of the webinar series: LEGAL ETHICS â BEST PRACTICES 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
Chapter ObjectivesAfter completing this chapter, you will know.docxmccormicknadine86
Â
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, you will know:
¡ The basic steps involved in the civil litigation process and the types of tasks that may be required of paralegals during each step of the pretrial phase.
¡ What a litigation file is, what it contains, and how it is organized, maintained, and reviewed.
¡ How a lawsuit is initiated and what documents and motions are filed during the pleadings stage of the civil litigation process.
¡ What discovery is and what kinds of information attorneys and their paralegals obtain from parties to the lawsuit and from witnesses when preparing for trial.
Introduction
Every paralegal should be acquainted with the basic phases of civil litigation and the forms and terminology commonly used in the process. The paralegal plays an important role in helping the trial attorney prepare for and conduct a civil trial. Preparation involves a variety of tasks including:
¡ Carefully researching relevant law.
¡ Gathering and documenting evidence.
¡ Creating and organizing the litigation file.
¡ Meeting procedural requirements and deadlines for filing documents with the court.
Preparing witnesseswitnessesA person who is asked to testify under oath at a trial.10-1Civil LitigationâA Birdâs-Eye View
Although civil trials vary greatly in terms of complexity, cost, and detail, they share similar structural characteristics. They begin with an event that gives rise to the legal action, and (provided the case is not settled by the parties at some point during the litigation processâas most cases are) they end with the issuance of a judgment-The courtâs final decision regarding the rights and claims of the parties to a lawsuit., the courtâs decision on the matter. In the process, the litigation itself may involve many twists and turns. Even though each case has its own âstory line,â most civil lawsuits follow some version of the course charted in Exhibit 10.1.
What is That?
10-1a Pretrial Settlements
In most cases, the parties reach a settlementâan out-of-court resolution of the disputeâ before the case goes to trial. Lawsuits are costly in both time and money, and it is usually in the interest of both parties to settle the case out of court. Throughout the pretrial stage of litigation, the attorney will therefore attempt to help the parties reach a settlement. At the same time, the attorney and the paralegal must operate under the assumption that the case will go to trial, because all pretrial preparation must be completed prior to the trial date.
Change font size
10-1b Procedural Requirements
Understanding and meeting procedural requirements are essential in the litigation process. These requirements are set out in the procedural rules of the court in which a lawsuit is brought. Civil trials held in federal district courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). These rules specify what must be done during the various stages of the federal civil litigation process. For example, Rule 4 of th ...
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita says the Disciplinary Commission is bowing to "political pressure" in its effort to make his confidential agreement public.
Fleet v. Bank of America case from California Court of AppealLegalDocsPro
Â
This Fleet v. Bank of America case was recently decided by a California Court of Appeal. This case was decided by Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 25, 2014, on September 23, 2014 the Court granted the request of several parties for publication. The case involved allegations by the Fleets of fraud on the part of Bank of America during the loan modification process.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment entered in the case and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for fraud as to Bank of America and several other individual defendants, as well as reversing the order sustaining demurrers to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action against Bank of America athough the Court did affirm the order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend against several other defendants including Recon Trust. The Court also affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for accounting without leave to amend. This case is very good news in my opinion as this case may represent a turning point as it is the only published case from California that I am aware of in which an appeals Court appears to be at least considering the possibility that the big banks may be engaging in a pattern of fraud and deceit.
CPAs responsibilities to detect fraud in audits, required approaches, types of financial statement frauds and specific case examples of different types of financial statement fraud
Washington Court Holds Stipulated Covenant Judgment Sets Minimum Amount of Da...NationalUnderwriter
Â
Washington Court Holds Stipulated Covenant Judgment Sets Minimum Amount of Damages in Bad Faith Case. (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center)
Recently, Division One of the Court of Appeals of Washington State affirmed a jury verdict awarding $13 million in damages to a passenger injured in a car accident, finding that the $4.15 million agreed amount of the covenant
judgment in the insurance bad faith case sets a floor, not a ceiling, on the damages a jury can award.
In Miller v. Kenny and Safeco Ins. Co.,[1] the Court of Appeals ruled on several additional issues on appeal including whether evidence of an insurance companyâs loss reserves is properly admissible at trial.
QUESTIONSALC fraud1. Describe in simple language and in detail.docxmakdul
Â
QUESTIONS
ALC fraud
1. Describe in simple language and in detail, the purpose of the fraud. (e.g. why did they do it?)
2. What is the auditorâs responsibility with respect to debt covenants when opining on financial statements? What are the financial covenants with Ventas as you understand them from the case? What is the purpose of financial covenants from a lessorâs perspective?
3. What was the impact on the financial statements from the fraud? i.e. what would the statements have looked like if management did not commit fraud and reported truthfully? What would have been the implications to ALC?
4. What evidence was provided to GT from ALC management to support their practice for the 2009 audit? Was this sufficient? â âNoâ. What evidence was included in the GT workpapers? What evidence could have been sufficient for the auditorâs to conclude that managementâs practice was acceptable and authorized by Ventas?
5. From your reading of the SEC documents, please provide examples of failures on the part of the lead engagement partner with respect to his/her audit of ALC? One way to approach this question is to provide a comparison of what she did do, vs. what she should have done. Be as specific as possible.
6. In the not-too-distant future, you will be âjunior auditorsâ as identified in this case study. What could/should the junior auditors have done differently in the 2009 and 2010 audits performed by GT?
7. Using examples from this case, why is it important for an auditor to understand a clientâs business operations? Were other signs of fraud present?
8. What did this fraud cost ALC and GT? Think big picture in this response.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 76537 / December 2, 2015
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
Release No. 3719 / December 2, 2015
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-16977
In the Matter of
Melissa K. Koeppel, CPA, and
Jeffrey J. Robinson, CPA,
Respondents.
ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-
DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 4C AND 21C OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE
COMMISSIONâS RULES OF PRACTICE,
MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING
REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-
AND-DESIST ORDER
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (âCommissionâ) deems it appropriate that public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to
Sections 4C
1
and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (âExchange Actâ) and Rule
102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commissionâs Rules of Practice
2
against Melissa K. Koeppel, CPA
(âKoeppelâ) and Jeffrey J. Robinson, CPA (âRobinsonâ) (collectively, âRespondentsâ).
1
Section 4C provides, in relevant part, that:
The Commission may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently,
to any person the pr ...
Damages Calculations in Intellectual Property Cases in CanadaDuff & Phelps
Â
In intellectual property cases, there are two types of monetary remedy: damages and an accounting of profits. Damages represent the patenteeâs loss and are the default remedy in the sense that a court is obliged to award damages on proof of infringement and consequent loss. This publication focuses on damages in patent cases, although the reasoning generally applies in trade-mark and copyright cases.
Case Analysis ¡ Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem f.docxwendolynhalbert
Â
Case Analysis
¡ Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem for the week in the corresponding weeks assignment dropbox. The case assignments will be posted by professor in the Announcements each week. In a large class some students may have duplicate cases assigned to other students.
¡ The assignment should consist of a presentable and entertaining presentation (Power Point or other medium) and will be delivered in some form of participative medium (webex/on-site/or alternative as determined by professor) . It should include a summary of the relevant facts, the law, judicial opinion and answer the case questions. All that is necessary for an understanding of the case is important and required.
¡ The report must go beyond the discussion of the problem posed in the textbook, to achieve a superior grade. Do research outside the textbook- this must include research outside the case citation such as the Lexus-Nexis in the DeVry Library or FindLaw.com, do research on the parties and circumstances of the case itself and incorporate some audio-visual modality as a part of the case analysis.something about one of the parties, as well as some background contained in the legal opinion. Doing significant research outside the textbook is essential.
¡ Utilize the case format below.
¡ Your grade comes from the content contained on the actual submission.
Case Analysis Format
1. Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:
Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]
Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]
Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]
Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.
Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision]
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation.
4. Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds!
5. Wrap up with a Conclusi ...
My personal educational goals Admission/Application Essay. 017 Goals Essay Graduate School Personal Statement Format Header .... Career goals Essay | Essay on Career goals for Students and Children in .... 007 Essay Example Educational Goals Examples Poemsrom Co And Objectives .... What Are Your Educational Goals Essay â Goresan. The Significance of SMART Goals: [Essay Example], 629 words GradesFixer.
What is market failure Essay Example | StudyHippo.com. Market Failure Essay | Economics H2 - GCE A Level | Thinkswap. Market failure: A case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written .... Market failure essay - YouTube.
C. Lee Lott - Baker Donelson Employee (Counsel/Advisor To Mississippi Governo...VogelDenise
Â
C. Lee Lott - Baker Donelson Employee (Counsel/Advisor To Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour)
Provides information as to the REASONS why the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS and CONGRESSIONAL COMPLAINTS Filed by Vogel Denise Newsome are being OBSTRUCTED from being PROSECUTED!
Garretson Resolution Group appears to be FRONTING Firm for United States President Barack Obama and Legal Counsel/Advisor (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz) which has submitted a SLAPP Complaint to OneWebHosting.com in efforts of PREVENTING the PUBLIC/WORLD from knowing of its and President Barack Obama's ROLE in CONSPIRACIES leveled against Vogel Denise Newsome in EXPOSING the TRUTH behind the 911 DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS, COLLAPSE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY, EMPLOYMENT violations and other crimes of United States Government Officials. Information that United States President Barack Obama, The Garretson Resolution Group, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, and United States Congress, etc. do NOT want the PUBLIC/WORLD to see. Information of PUBLIC Interest!
This webinar is for the lawyer -or anyone else- who wants to brush up on the latest issues and strategies to be aware of regarding legal ethics and best practices. The panelists discuss recent and important case law in the area and explain how those decisions can have real-world impact on the situations you may be involved in. Among others, the panel will address the following Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.7-Conflict of Interest: Current Clients; Rule 1.8-Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules; Rule 3.8 - Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor; and Rule 4.4(a) Respect for Rights of Third Persons.
Part of the webinar series: LEGAL ETHICS â BEST PRACTICES 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
Chapter ObjectivesAfter completing this chapter, you will know.docxmccormicknadine86
Â
Chapter Objectives
After completing this chapter, you will know:
¡ The basic steps involved in the civil litigation process and the types of tasks that may be required of paralegals during each step of the pretrial phase.
¡ What a litigation file is, what it contains, and how it is organized, maintained, and reviewed.
¡ How a lawsuit is initiated and what documents and motions are filed during the pleadings stage of the civil litigation process.
¡ What discovery is and what kinds of information attorneys and their paralegals obtain from parties to the lawsuit and from witnesses when preparing for trial.
Introduction
Every paralegal should be acquainted with the basic phases of civil litigation and the forms and terminology commonly used in the process. The paralegal plays an important role in helping the trial attorney prepare for and conduct a civil trial. Preparation involves a variety of tasks including:
¡ Carefully researching relevant law.
¡ Gathering and documenting evidence.
¡ Creating and organizing the litigation file.
¡ Meeting procedural requirements and deadlines for filing documents with the court.
Preparing witnesseswitnessesA person who is asked to testify under oath at a trial.10-1Civil LitigationâA Birdâs-Eye View
Although civil trials vary greatly in terms of complexity, cost, and detail, they share similar structural characteristics. They begin with an event that gives rise to the legal action, and (provided the case is not settled by the parties at some point during the litigation processâas most cases are) they end with the issuance of a judgment-The courtâs final decision regarding the rights and claims of the parties to a lawsuit., the courtâs decision on the matter. In the process, the litigation itself may involve many twists and turns. Even though each case has its own âstory line,â most civil lawsuits follow some version of the course charted in Exhibit 10.1.
What is That?
10-1a Pretrial Settlements
In most cases, the parties reach a settlementâan out-of-court resolution of the disputeâ before the case goes to trial. Lawsuits are costly in both time and money, and it is usually in the interest of both parties to settle the case out of court. Throughout the pretrial stage of litigation, the attorney will therefore attempt to help the parties reach a settlement. At the same time, the attorney and the paralegal must operate under the assumption that the case will go to trial, because all pretrial preparation must be completed prior to the trial date.
Change font size
10-1b Procedural Requirements
Understanding and meeting procedural requirements are essential in the litigation process. These requirements are set out in the procedural rules of the court in which a lawsuit is brought. Civil trials held in federal district courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). These rules specify what must be done during the various stages of the federal civil litigation process. For example, Rule 4 of th ...
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita says the Disciplinary Commission is bowing to "political pressure" in its effort to make his confidential agreement public.
Fleet v. Bank of America case from California Court of AppealLegalDocsPro
Â
This Fleet v. Bank of America case was recently decided by a California Court of Appeal. This case was decided by Division Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on August 25, 2014, on September 23, 2014 the Court granted the request of several parties for publication. The case involved allegations by the Fleets of fraud on the part of Bank of America during the loan modification process.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Judgment entered in the case and reversed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for fraud as to Bank of America and several other individual defendants, as well as reversing the order sustaining demurrers to the breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action against Bank of America athough the Court did affirm the order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend against several other defendants including Recon Trust. The Court also affirmed the order sustaining the demurrer to the cause of action for accounting without leave to amend. This case is very good news in my opinion as this case may represent a turning point as it is the only published case from California that I am aware of in which an appeals Court appears to be at least considering the possibility that the big banks may be engaging in a pattern of fraud and deceit.
CPAs responsibilities to detect fraud in audits, required approaches, types of financial statement frauds and specific case examples of different types of financial statement fraud
Washington Court Holds Stipulated Covenant Judgment Sets Minimum Amount of Da...NationalUnderwriter
Â
Washington Court Holds Stipulated Covenant Judgment Sets Minimum Amount of Damages in Bad Faith Case. (from FC&S Legal: The Insurance Coverage Law Information Center)
Recently, Division One of the Court of Appeals of Washington State affirmed a jury verdict awarding $13 million in damages to a passenger injured in a car accident, finding that the $4.15 million agreed amount of the covenant
judgment in the insurance bad faith case sets a floor, not a ceiling, on the damages a jury can award.
In Miller v. Kenny and Safeco Ins. Co.,[1] the Court of Appeals ruled on several additional issues on appeal including whether evidence of an insurance companyâs loss reserves is properly admissible at trial.
QUESTIONSALC fraud1. Describe in simple language and in detail.docxmakdul
Â
QUESTIONS
ALC fraud
1. Describe in simple language and in detail, the purpose of the fraud. (e.g. why did they do it?)
2. What is the auditorâs responsibility with respect to debt covenants when opining on financial statements? What are the financial covenants with Ventas as you understand them from the case? What is the purpose of financial covenants from a lessorâs perspective?
3. What was the impact on the financial statements from the fraud? i.e. what would the statements have looked like if management did not commit fraud and reported truthfully? What would have been the implications to ALC?
4. What evidence was provided to GT from ALC management to support their practice for the 2009 audit? Was this sufficient? â âNoâ. What evidence was included in the GT workpapers? What evidence could have been sufficient for the auditorâs to conclude that managementâs practice was acceptable and authorized by Ventas?
5. From your reading of the SEC documents, please provide examples of failures on the part of the lead engagement partner with respect to his/her audit of ALC? One way to approach this question is to provide a comparison of what she did do, vs. what she should have done. Be as specific as possible.
6. In the not-too-distant future, you will be âjunior auditorsâ as identified in this case study. What could/should the junior auditors have done differently in the 2009 and 2010 audits performed by GT?
7. Using examples from this case, why is it important for an auditor to understand a clientâs business operations? Were other signs of fraud present?
8. What did this fraud cost ALC and GT? Think big picture in this response.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Release No. 76537 / December 2, 2015
ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING ENFORCEMENT
Release No. 3719 / December 2, 2015
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-16977
In the Matter of
Melissa K. Koeppel, CPA, and
Jeffrey J. Robinson, CPA,
Respondents.
ORDER INSTITUTING PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATIVE AND CEASE-AND-
DESIST PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 4C AND 21C OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AND RULE 102(e) OF THE
COMMISSIONâS RULES OF PRACTICE,
MAKING FINDINGS, AND IMPOSING
REMEDIAL SANCTIONS AND A CEASE-
AND-DESIST ORDER
I.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (âCommissionâ) deems it appropriate that public
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to
Sections 4C
1
and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (âExchange Actâ) and Rule
102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commissionâs Rules of Practice
2
against Melissa K. Koeppel, CPA
(âKoeppelâ) and Jeffrey J. Robinson, CPA (âRobinsonâ) (collectively, âRespondentsâ).
1
Section 4C provides, in relevant part, that:
The Commission may censure any person, or deny, temporarily or permanently,
to any person the pr ...
Damages Calculations in Intellectual Property Cases in CanadaDuff & Phelps
Â
In intellectual property cases, there are two types of monetary remedy: damages and an accounting of profits. Damages represent the patenteeâs loss and are the default remedy in the sense that a court is obliged to award damages on proof of infringement and consequent loss. This publication focuses on damages in patent cases, although the reasoning generally applies in trade-mark and copyright cases.
Case Analysis ¡ Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem f.docxwendolynhalbert
Â
Case Analysis
¡ Post a brief case analysis of a listed problem for the week in the corresponding weeks assignment dropbox. The case assignments will be posted by professor in the Announcements each week. In a large class some students may have duplicate cases assigned to other students.
¡ The assignment should consist of a presentable and entertaining presentation (Power Point or other medium) and will be delivered in some form of participative medium (webex/on-site/or alternative as determined by professor) . It should include a summary of the relevant facts, the law, judicial opinion and answer the case questions. All that is necessary for an understanding of the case is important and required.
¡ The report must go beyond the discussion of the problem posed in the textbook, to achieve a superior grade. Do research outside the textbook- this must include research outside the case citation such as the Lexus-Nexis in the DeVry Library or FindLaw.com, do research on the parties and circumstances of the case itself and incorporate some audio-visual modality as a part of the case analysis.something about one of the parties, as well as some background contained in the legal opinion. Doing significant research outside the textbook is essential.
¡ Utilize the case format below.
¡ Your grade comes from the content contained on the actual submission.
Case Analysis Format
1. Read and understand the case or question assigned. Show your Analysis and Reasoning and make it clear you understand the material. Be sure to incorporate the concepts of the chapter we are studying to show your reasoning. Dedicate at least one heading to each following outline topic:
Parties [Identify the plaintiff and the defendant]
Facts [Summarize only those facts critical to the outcome of the case]
Procedure [Who brought the appeal? What was the outcome in the lower court(s)?]
Issue [Note the central question or questions on which the case turns]
Explain the applicable law(s). Use the textbook here. The law should come from the same chapter as the case. Be sure to use citations from the textbook including page numbers.
Holding [How did the court resolve the issue(s)? Who won?]
Reasoning [Explain the logic that supported the court's decision]
2. Do significant research outside of the book and demonstrate that you have in a very obvious way. This refers to research beyond the legal research. This involves something about the parties or other interesting related area. Show something you have discovered about the case, parties or other important element from your own research. Be sure this is obvious and adds value beyond the legal reasoning of the case.
3. Dedicate 1 slide to each of the case question(s) immediately following the case, if there are any. Be sure to state and fully answer the questions in the presentation.
4. Quality in terms of substance, form, grammar and context. Be entertaining! Use excellent audio-visual material and backgrounds!
5. Wrap up with a Conclusi ...
My personal educational goals Admission/Application Essay. 017 Goals Essay Graduate School Personal Statement Format Header .... Career goals Essay | Essay on Career goals for Students and Children in .... 007 Essay Example Educational Goals Examples Poemsrom Co And Objectives .... What Are Your Educational Goals Essay â Goresan. The Significance of SMART Goals: [Essay Example], 629 words GradesFixer.
What is market failure Essay Example | StudyHippo.com. Market Failure Essay | Economics H2 - GCE A Level | Thinkswap. Market failure: A case study Essay Example | Topics and Well Written .... Market failure essay - YouTube.
How To Write an Essay - Essay Tips: 7 Tips on Writing an Effective .... DOS AND DONâTS TO WRITE A GOOD ESSAY - How to write an good essay?. 32 College Essay Format Templates & Examples - TemplateArchive. School essay: Argumentative essay sample for college. This is How You Write a College Essay | College application essay .... How To Format An Essay For College - unugtp. 10 Tips to Write an Essay and Actually Enjoy It. How To Write An Essay Examples â Telegraph. FREE 9+ College Essay Examples in PDF | Examples - How to write english .... This is How You Write a College Essay | College essay examples, College .... Purchasing Essays papers: How to write an essay about yourself example. 003 Why This College Essay Sample Example ~ Thatsnotus. Essay. College Essay Examples - 9+ in PDF | Examples. 26 Outstanding College Essay Examples / - Example of a college essay .... How To Start Off A Essay About Yourself. A for and against essay | LearnEnglish Teens - British Council. College Sample Scholarship Essays | Master of Template Document. Do My Essay University College Essay Writing Service Skilled Exp.. Step-By-Step Guide to Essay Writing - ESL Buzz. What to write an essay about. The Beginner's Guide to Writing an Essay .... HOW TO WRITE ESSAYS by karen.porter - Issuu. Steps to writing a basic essay - copywriterdubai.x.fc2.com. Best dissertation help. Business Paper: Sample argument essay. Buy essay uk questions; Is It Legal to Buy Academic Essays Online?. Quick Way To Write Essay - Anna Blog. How to Write In College Essay Format | OCC NJ. What is the proper way to write a title of an essay. 20 must do essay writing topics â MBA CET 2024. Analytical Essay: Advanced english essays. 002 Essay Example Should College Free Argument Tuition Payments Pdf For .... Do essay - The Writing Center. Do Essay Do Essay
Best Film Analysis Essay Examples PNG - scholarship. Reflection essay: Critical analysis of a movie example. 019 Essay Example How To Write Movie Review Subject English Law School .... Film Essay. 012 Movie Review Essay Cover Letters Of Exploratory Essays Good Basics .... 006 Essay Movies English Paper Help How To Write For High School .... 008 Film Evaluation Essay Example On Movie How To Write Review Analysis .... 018 Essay Example Movie Review ~ Thatsnotus. My Favourite Film Essay â Telegraph. Striking Film Essay ~ Thatsnotus. Example Film Essay Thesis - How to Write an Evaluation Essay. 017 Film Essay Example Rashomonessay Phpapp02 Thumbnail ~ Thatsnotus.
Satire Essay On Texting. Satire Essay On Texting | Peterainsworth. Satirical Essays On Texting. 016 Satirical Essay Topics Example Essays Texting Bookman Road .... example of satire essay. How To Write A Satire Essay: Learn The Right Techniques To Cope With It. Satirical essay on texting â axatisivu. Satire Essay Example â Telegraph. Satirical Essay On Texting. Satirical essays on texting | SAC Homberg. satire analysis essay | Satire | Mark Twain. 002 Writing Satirical Essay P1 ~ Thatsnotus. Satirical Essays On Texting | Peterainsworth. How To Write A Good Satire Article - Ackland Writing. Good examples of satire essays. Satire definition, the use of irony .... Step-by-step Guide On Writing Satirical Essays - EssayMin Satirical Essays On Texting Satirical Essays On Texting
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Â
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
2024.06.01 Introducing a competency framework for languag learning materials ...Sandy Millin
Â
http://sandymillin.wordpress.com/iateflwebinar2024
Published classroom materials form the basis of syllabuses, drive teacher professional development, and have a potentially huge influence on learners, teachers and education systems. All teachers also create their own materials, whether a few sentences on a blackboard, a highly-structured fully-realised online course, or anything in between. Despite this, the knowledge and skills needed to create effective language learning materials are rarely part of teacher training, and are mostly learnt by trial and error.
Knowledge and skills frameworks, generally called competency frameworks, for ELT teachers, trainers and managers have existed for a few years now. However, until I created one for my MA dissertation, there wasnât one drawing together what we need to know and do to be able to effectively produce language learning materials.
This webinar will introduce you to my framework, highlighting the key competencies I identified from my research. It will also show how anybody involved in language teaching (any language, not just English!), teacher training, managing schools or developing language learning materials can benefit from using the framework.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
Â
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Â
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptxEduSkills OECD
Â
Francesca Gottschalk from the OECDâs Centre for Educational Research and Innovation presents at the Ask an Expert Webinar: How can education support child empowerment?
Francesca Gottschalk - How can education support child empowerment.pptx
Â
Accounting Expert Witnesses
1. THE BATTLE of
ACCOUNTING
EXPERT WITNESSES:
By D. Larry Crumbley, PhD, CPA, Cr.FA, DABFE
T
hick skin can be an asset for expert witnesses dealing
with the harshness of some judges. Judges can make
negative comments about an expert in the courtroom,
which can hurt an expertâs reputation. For example, a
judge in Floridaâs Fourth District Court of Appeal said the follow-
ing about an expert when a defense attorney asked why he exclud-
ed the expert:
âDr. ________ is an insidious perjurer who wouldnât know the
truth if it leapt up and bit him on the ***.â
The expert had been a doctor since 1963 and had testified for 25
years. On appeal, the appellate court upheld the judgeâs ruling that
the expertâs claim lacked merit.
Not being truthful while testifying can be especially harmful. For
example, prosecutors said that ink expert Larry F. Stewart committed
perjury on the stand during the obstruction-of-justice trial of Martha
Stewart. Mr. Stewart, laboratory director for the U.S. Secret Service, was
charged with two counts of perjury, facing 5 years in prison if convict-
ed. Prosecutors said that Mr. Stewart lied when he said he participated
in the testing of ink on a worksheet supposedly showing a pre-existing
agreement with Martha Stewart to sell her shares of Imclone stock. He
had said, âI performed a test to determine ⌠,â when in effect, he did
not participate in analyzing the critical documents.
Larry Stewart was acquitted on October 5, 2004. One juror said, âHe
put his foot in his mouth, and he couldnât take it out because of his ego.
He did not walk into the courtroom intending to lieâ (Bary, 2004).
After a discussion of side-taking, this article will cover two business
trials where the judges were extremely critical of the experts.
JUDGES CAN BE HARSH
48 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER Summer 2008 www.acfei.com
CE Article: (ACFEI, Cr.FA) 1 CE credit for this article
2. Side-Taking or Result-
Oriented Work
Experts must be unbiased advocates for the
truth. Expert testimony is not useful when
the expert is merely an advocate for the po-
sition argued by one of the parties (Estate of
Jameson v. Commissioner, 1999). A trial judge
may dismiss an expert witness who is influ-
enced by side-taking. Hints at a lawyerâs line
of arguments can influence an accounting ex-
pertâs opinion about an auditorâs compliance
with GAAS (Ricchiute, 2004).
Even the most famous of experts can
be tarred by a judge. In Estate of Bessie I.
Mueller (1992), the issue was the valuation
of stock of Mueller Company. The IRS pro-
duced as its expert on the valuation ques-
tions Dr. Shannon Pratt, managing director
of Willamette Management Associates and
the acknowledged dean of business apprais-
ers. U.S. Tax Court Judge Renato Beghe nev-
ertheless concluded that âWillametteâs report
was result-oriented and this was reflected in
Dr. Prattâs testimony.â The Judge noted that
appraisers âhave third-party responsibilitiesâ
just as certified public accountants doâto
those who rely on their opinions, and their
determinations must be independent and
objective. âŚ
âDr. Pratt strayed from the standard of
objectivity and cast aside his scholarâs man-
tle and became âa shillâ for respondent.â In
Mueller, as a result, Judge Beghe rejected most
of both the Willamette report and Dr. Prattâs
testimony, but did take into account Dr.
Prattâs criticism of the taxpayerâs expertâs re-
ports and testimony (Raby & Raby, 2003).
The SEC Tries for Fraud
In a bench trial in April 2005, the Securities
Exchange Commission (SEC) alleged fraud
in violation of §10b and records violations
under §13b of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The SEC alleged that David C.
Guenthner (CFO) and Jay Samuelson (Asst.
Corporate Controller) committed fraud by
causing InaCom Corporation [InaCom] to
overstate its 1999 third-quarter earnings
in public filings, fraudulently recorded the
overstated earnings in its books and records,
and lied to auditors to conceal the fraudu-
lent activities.
The SECâs claim of securities fraud vio-
lation involved three allegedly improper or
erroneous accounting practices that affected
InaComâs third-quarter 1999 financial state-
ments and filings: (1) InaComâs reduction
of certain reserves; (2) InaComâs adjustment
of certain inventory and accounts payable
discrepancies and the posting of those ad-
justments to third-quarter 1999 financial
statements; and (3) InaComâs recognition
of âbid price arbitrageâ (BPA) receivables in
third-quarter 1999. The SEC contended that
these accounting practices violated generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Some Basic Facts from
this Court Decision
InaCom, a Delaware Corporation
headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, was a
provider of information technology products
and services. InaCom purchased computer
equipment from major manufacturers for
resale to end-users. InaCom merged with
Vanstar Corporation, another provider of
information technology products and services,
in February 1999. During the late 1990s,
traditional computer manufacturers who had
distributed their products through resellers
such as InaCom experienced significant price
competition from direct sale manufacturers.
As a result, the traditional manufacturers
established âspecial bidâ rebate programs to
effectively compete with the direct sellers
for the business of large customers. These
traditional manufacturers also established
various price protection programs whereby
a computer manufacturer would rebate the
difference in price for each computer that a
reseller held in inventory if it decreased the
wholesale price of a computer within a certain
time after a computer resellerâs purchases. [On
June 16, 2000, InaCom filed for Chapter 11
protection, and neither David Guenthner nor
Jay Samuelson personally profited from the
alleged misstatements.]
With respect to the events leading to the
third-quarter filing, CFO David Guenthner
testified that Jay Samuelson and Paul
Draheim reported to him. Draheim was re-
sponsible for the inventory and had calculat-
ed an inventory adjustment in the amount of
$15.6 million for the third quarter of 1999.
David Guenthner also testified that the com-
pany maintained operating reserves set by
its operating divisions, inventory reserves
in each division, and corporate reserves, in-
cluding those that were set up in connection
with the acquisition of Vanstar Corporation.
Guenthner said he reviewed total inventory
reserves at the end of each quarter, and his
understanding of GAAP in connection with
reserves was that it was necessary to have a
basis or reason for setting the reserves and for
reversing them.
David Guenthnerâs original recommen-
dation to the board of directors (BODs) in
the third quarter of 1999, was that InaComâs
third-quarter earnings should be 25 cents
a share. Guenthner and Jay Samuelson
had met with then CEO Bill Fairfield on
October 15, 1999, to discuss the financial
statements in preparation for the upcoming
BODs meeting. Fairfield agreed with David
Guenthnerâs financial analysis, and InaComâs
Audit Committee also agreed with his rec-
ommendation. The 25-cents-per-share fig-
ure was based on a reduction of reserves in
the amount of $14 million. Guenthner con-
tinued to believe that the 25-cents-per-share
figure was appropriate under GAAP.
David Guenthner testified that Bill
Fairfield, the Audit Committee, the Board
of Directors, and InaComâs external auditors,
KPMG, were all informed of the proposed
reduction of reserves. The evidence showed
that the reserves were discussed at the Audit
Committee meeting and that representa-
tives of KPMG were present at the meeting.
Guenthner testified that he believed InaCom
had adequate reserves even with a reduction
in reserves in the amount of $14 million.
He testified that InaCom had in excess of
$116 million in reserves in the third quarter
of 1999. These reserves included NYNEX
tax reserves and lease closing reserves. David
Guenthner testified that the likelihood of
needing those reserves had lessened over
time.
Posting of BPA as Receivables
Regarding the posting of bid price arbi-
trage (BPA) amounts as receivables, David
Guenthner, CFO, testified that bid price ar-
bitrages were agreements that salesmen and
others at the district level made with vendors
to rebate a portion of the price that InaCom
had paid for their product if the price went
down before InaCom sold to the ultimate
consumer. These special bid contracts were
generally oral agreements, which were com-
mon in the computer industry. The ven-
dorsâ incentive to agree to the rebates was
InaComâs continued business as a reseller
of the vendors' product. David Guenthner
testified that he believed the BPA amounts
were collectible.
InaCom employees John Dugan and Mike
Steffan testified as lay witnesses for the de-
fendants. They testified that they expected
to collect the bid price arbitrage amounts.
Dugan had been assured that the vendors
were working to streamline procedures to
(800) 423-9737 Summer 2008 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER 49
3. validate the amounts, and Mike Steffan re-
ceived assurances from other executives that
the rebates would be paid. Also, the evidence
established that InaCom had in fact collected
some BPA receivables.
Defendant Jay Samuelson also testified and
essentially corroborated David Guenthnerâs
version of the events. He added that he had
no knowledge regarding the adjustment of in-
ventory beyond the documents that were pro-
vided to him by Paul Draheim. There were
no allegations that defendant Jay Samuelson
was involved in posting the BPA as receiv-
ables in the financial statements.
SECâs Star Witness
Paul Anderson, a CPA who was employed by
KPMG, and InaComâs external auditor at the
time of the incidents at issue, also testified.
He testified that InaCom was a KPMG audit
client, and that he worked on the InaCom
account in various capacities beginning as an
assistant accountant in 1990, and ultimately
as the supervising senior manager in 1999
and 2000. He performed quarterly and an-
nual audits at InaCom.
Paul Anderson testified that InaCom ac-
quired Vanstar in what he characterized as a
âpooling of interestsâ or âmerger of equalsâ in
February of 1999. As a result of the merger,
Vanstarâs and InaComâs financial statements
were combined, and InaComâs revenues dou-
bled. Anderson testified that he was aware of
the competitive pressures that occurred with-
in the computer industry in the late 1990s.
Mr. Anderson testified that KPMG per-
formed a quarterly review of Inacomâs third-
quarter financial statements in 1999, stating
that quarterly audits were less detailed than
annual audits. As senior manager, he reviewed
the work of supervising senior accountant
Denise McGill. The KPMG auditors com-
pleted its review of InaComâs third-quarter
1999 filings before they were filed. KPMG
signed off and approved the filings.
Paul Anderson further testified that he was
involved with InaComâs 1999 year-end au-
dit. Thomas Fitzpatrick had become CFO in
late November or early December of 1999.
Fitzpatrick spoke to Mr. Anderson and to
Andersonâs supervisor, Pat Jung, about pos-
sible restatements or earnings that Fitzpatrick
thought should be taken on InaComâs fourth-
quarter financial reports. Anderson said that
he investigated the issues and made some
preliminary findings. His preliminary con-
clusion was that InaComâs reserve reduction,
BPA posting, and adjustment for inventory in
InaComâs third-quarter financial statements
did not comply with GAAP. Andersonâs ini-
tial conclusion was that InaCom should de-
crease earnings of the third-quarter 1999 by
$25 million. Paul Anderson further testified
that his audit was never completed and that
his findings remained preliminary.
Paul Anderson also said that the field work
for the audit was not performed under nor-
mal conditions because the hardware divi-
sion of InaCom had been sold to Compaq in
February of 2000, and many former InaCom
employees were no longer working there or
were employed by Custom Edge, a com-
pany owned by Compaq. In addition, Mr.
Anderson was aware that a class-action share-
holder suit had been filed against InaCom,
and Andersonâs working papers could be sub-
poenaed. Paul Anderson testified that Mr.
Guenthner had stated that the reserves had
been reduced because they were not neces-
sary, but Andersonâs superiors did not con-
sider that explanation satisfactory.
Other Important Details
In order to succeed on their claim, the SEC
must prove: (1) misrepresentations or omis-
sions of material facts or acts that operated
as a fraud or deceit in violation of the rule;
(2) causation, often analyzed in terms of ma-
teriality and reliance; and (3) scienter on the
part of the defendants (In re K-tel Intâl, Inc.,
2002). Mere negligence does not violate Rule
10b (Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 1976).
Severe recklessness, however, which is âlim-
ited to those highly unreasonable omissions
or misrepresentations that involve not merely
simple, or even inexcusable negligence, but
an extreme departure from the standards of
ordinary care, and that present a danger of
misleading buyers or sellers which is either
known to the defendant or is so obvious that
the defendant must have been aware of may
[amount to securities fraud]â (Ernst & Ernst
v. Hochfelder, 1976). âReckless conduct is
conduct that consists of a highly unreason-
able act, or omission, that is an extreme de-
parture from the standards of ordinary care,
and which presents a danger of misleading
buyers or sellers that is either known to the
defendant or is so obvious that the actor must
have been aware of it.â Such a level of reck-
lessness requires that defendants make state-
ments that they know are materially inaccu-
rate, or that they have access to information
that suggests the statements are materially
inaccurate (Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. v. Ernst
& Young, 2005).
Thus, to result in a Section 10(b) liability
for fraud, the mere second-guessing of calcu-
lations will not suffice; the SEC must show
that defendantsâ judgmentâat the moment
exercisedâwas sufficiently egregious that a
reasonable accountant reviewing the facts and
figures should have concluded that the com-
panyâs financial statements were misstated
and that, as a result, the public was likely to
be misled (In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc.,
2002).
Financial statements to the SEC must be
made in accordance with GAAP (Kinder
v. Acceptance Ins. Cos., 2005), and finan-
cial results reported in violation of GAAP
are presumptively misleading or inaccurate
(California Pub. Employeeâs Ret. Sys. v. Chubb
Corp., 2004). Violations of GAAP standards
also can provide evidence of scienter (Greebel
v. FTP Software, Inc., 1999). Scienter is de-
fined as when the fraudster knew that his or
her actions were intended to deceive.
Statements of Financial Accounting
Standards (SFASs) and the anti-fraud rules
promulgated under §10 (b) of the 1934 Act
serve similar purposes, and courts have often
treated violations of the former as indication
that the latter were also violated (Malone v.
Microdyne Corp., 1994). Nevertheless, the
prohibitions contained in GAAP and in
Section 10(b) are not perfectly coextensive
(Malone v. Microdyne Corp.). In some situ-
ations, courts have found defendants liable
for securities fraud under §10b despite having
complied with GAAP, while in other situa-
tions, courts have discharged defendants from
§10b liability notwithstanding deliberate vio-
lations of GAAP (Malone v. Microdyne Corp.).
âEven when a companyâs disclosure is in vi-
olation of GAAP, âsome techniquesâŚmight
prove to be entirely legitimate, depending on
the specific factsââ (Barron v. Smith, 2004).
âGAAP is a term of art that encompasses
a wide range of acceptable procedures" ((In
re IKON Office Solutions, Inc., 2002). GAAPs
âare far from being a canonical set of rules
that will ensure identical accounting treat-
ment of identical transactions ⌠[GAAPs],
rather, tolerate a range of âreasonableâ treat-
ments, leaving the choice among alternatives
to managementâ (Decker v. GlenFed, Inc.,
1994). Because accounting concepts are flex-
ible, circumstances will give rise to fraud only
where differences in calculations are the result
of a falsehood, ânot merely the difference be-
tween two permissible judgmentsâ (Godchaux
v. Conveying Techniques, Inc., 1988). A rea-
sonable accountant may choose to apply any
of a variety of acceptable procedures when
preparing a financial statement. âThere are
19 different GAAP sources, any number of
50 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER Summer 2008 www.acfei.com
4. which might present conflicting treatments of a
particular accounting question ⌠when such con-
flicts arise, the accountant is directed to consult an
elaborate hierarchy of GAAP sources to determine
which treatment to followâ (Shalala v. Guernsey
Memâl Hosp., 1995). The sources for GAAP in-
clude official publications consisting of APB opin-
ions, FASB Statements, and Accounting Research
Bulletins (ARB) (In re K-tel Intâl, Inc., 2002).
The Defense Won in
SEC v. Guenthner
Establishing that an accounting practice or meth-
od is inconsistent with GAAP requires expert tes-
timony (In re Burlington Coat Factory, 1997).The
Supreme Court in Daubert identified four flexible,
nonexclusive variables for determining whether an
expertâs opinion is sufficiently reliable: (1) whether
the theory has been, or can be, tested; (2) whether
the theory has been subjected to peer review and
publication; (3) when a particular technique is
used, whether there is a known or potential rate of
error; and (4) the extent of acceptance of the theo-
ry in the relevant scientific community (Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993). Further,
in Kumho Tire (Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Camichael,
1999), the Supreme Court held that a trial court is
to use its discretion to determine what the reason-
able criteria of reliability are and whether the pro-
posed testimony meets those criteria based on the
circumstances of that dispute. Finally, as observed
by the Supreme Court in 1998, in assessing reli-
ability the court must determine whether the ex-
pert testimony has âa traceable, analytical basis in
objective factâ (Bragdon v. Abbott, 1998). But even
Daubert stated that âvigorous cross-examination,
presentation of contrary evidence, and careful in-
struction on the burden of proof are the traditional
and appropriate means of attacking shaky but ad-
missible evidence" (pp. 595â596).
At the close of the SECâs arguments, defendants
moved for judgment as a matter of law, contend-
ing that the SEC had failed to prove its case. The
judge reserved ruling on the motion, and the de-
fendants proceeded to put on their evidence.
During the prosecution stage, Dr. John Bazley
was identified as an expert by the SEC. He is a
professor of financial accounting at the University
of Denver. He testified that corporations, banks,
and auditors follow rules and procedures known as
âgenerally accepted accounting principlesâ (GAAP)
in filing financial statements and reports with the
Securities Exchange Commission. These rules are
promulgated by the Financial Accounting Standards
Board (FASB). He stated that the establishment of
a reserve and the release of a reserve are governed
by GAAP. He explained that a company creates a
reserve when there is an economic event that indi-
cates that the asset value needs to be lowered or a
liability needs to be recognized. Correspondingly,
he testified that it is appropriate under GAAP to
release a reserve when there is evidence that the es-
timate that led to the reserve is no longer appropri-
ate. Recording of a reserve is covered under FASB
Statement No. 5, âAccounting for Contingencies.â
Proper recording of a reserve requires that the con-
tingent event must be both probable and reason-
ably measurable.
Dr. Bazley also testified that under GAAP, a re-
ceivable must be booked at the time the revenue is
realized, or once the company has either received
the cash or has the right to receive the cash from
the customer. The valuation of a receivable is the
amount the company expects to collect. In order
to determine such an amount, a company can rely
on the concept of aging of receivables, under which
the longer the receivable has been outstanding, the
less likely it is to be collected in full. In addition,
Dr. Bazley testified that if an accounting error is
made, and the accounting in a prior period is later
determined to be incorrect, the financial statement
for the prior period should be adjusted or correct-
ed. Dr. Bazley did not state an opinion on whether
InaComâs third-quarter financial statements com-
plied with GAAP.
s NEW YORK, NY -- Martha Stewart
leaves federal court in New York City on
March 5, 2004. Stewart was found guilty
of one count of conspiracy, two counts of
making false statements and one count
of obstruction of agency proceedings.
The case also proved costly to an expert
witness who was accused but acquitted
of committing perjury. PHOTOGRAPH BY
MAYITA MENDEZ/NEWSDAY (MCT)
(800) 423-9737 Summer 2008 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER 51
5. The judge said the following about the
motion in limine to deny Dr. Bazley: To the
extent that a party challenged the probative
value of the evidence, such an attack is upon
the probative sufficiency of evidence related
not to admissibility but to the weight of the
evidence and is a matter for the trier of fact
to resolve. Also, some evidence âcannot be
evaluated accurately or sufficiently by the
trial judgeâ in the procedural environment of
a ruling on a motion in limine (United States
v. Beasley, 1996). Accordingly, the judge ad-
mitted the testimony of Dr. Bazley and ac-
corded it appropriate weight.
Defendants presented the expert testimo-
ny of Harris Devor. Although the trial tran-
script says that Mr. Devor is a professor of
accounting at Temple University, he is merely
a graduate from Temple University. He is a
CPA in the Philadelphia Shechtman Marks
Devon firm. He has been trained as an audi-
tor and has 32 years of experience in apply-
ing GAAP and GAAS standards. He testified
that he reviewed documents, exhibits, and
deposition testimony in connection with the
transactions at issue in this action. He testi-
fied that, based on a reasonable degree of ac-
counting and auditing certainty, in his opin-
ion no one following professional standards
could conclude that the alleged accounting
improprieties at issue in this action violated
GAAP. According to the trial transcript, Dr.
Harris [sic] explained that there are two ways
to establish that a reduction in reserves is in-
appropriate: (1) establishing that the reserve
should not have been established in the first
place, or (2) showing that the reserves re-
maining after the reduction are inadequate
to cover certain future liabilities or to reflect
impairment of certain assets.
Mr. Devor further testified, based upon the
record evidence in this dispute, that he saw no
evidence that InaComâs reserves were inade-
quate. He also testified that it is appropriate
to record an asset if it is reasonably expected
to produce an economic benefit at the time
it is posted. He thus concluded that it had
been proper for InaCom to record the bid
price arbitrage (BPA) amounts as receivables
if InaCom reasonably expected to collect those
receivables at the time they were recorded. He
further concluded, based on the record evi-
dence, that InaCom had a reasonable belief
that the BPA amounts were collectible, and
thus it was proper to record them.
Professor Kenneth Lehn, professor of Finance
at the University of Pittsburgh, also testified on
behalf of the defendants. He stated that the
alleged misrepresentations or misstatements,
either singly or in combination, by InaCom
would not have been material to the average
investor. He testified that investors are gener-
ally forward-looking and that the extremely
negative fourth-quarter prospects reported in
the press release would have negated the im-
pact of any 15-cent-per-share earnings.
Defendants renewed their motion for judg-
ment as a matter of law at the close of the ev-
idence phase, and the judge found that the
defendantsâ motions for judgment as a mat-
ter of law should be sustained. The judge said
that there had been a complete and utter fail-
ure of proof by the SEC. The SEC failed to
prove any of the elements of its securities fraud
claims. Most notably, the SEC had not shown
that David Guenthner or Jay Samuelson made
any misstatements or misrepresentations in
InaComâs third-quarter 1999 filings. The
SECâs claim was based on its contention that
defendants had misstated or âmanagedâ earn-
ings in the third-quarter 1999 report. The al-
leged misstatements of earnings were premised
on three allegedly improper, false, or erroneous
accounting procedures.
The SEC presented no evidence that
InaComâs accounting procedures did not
comply with GAAP. The SECâs only desig-
nated expert witness, Dr. Bazley, testified gen-
erally about GAAP and about basic principles
of accounting, but he offered no opinion on
whether the defendantsâ conduct in connec-
tion with the third-quarter 1999 financial re-
ports complied with GAAP. Whether the de-
fendantsâ actions as professional and certified
public accountants in preparing InaComâs
third-quarter 1999 financial reports complied
with GAAP is a question that requires techni-
cal and specialized knowledge. The standards
of conduct of a professional under these cir-
cumstances are not within the courtâs general
knowledge and experience. The need for ex-
pert testimony in this dispute is analogous to
the need for expert testimony on the standard
of care in a professional malpractice dispute.
With respect to the reduction of reserves, Dr.
John Bazley testified only that the creation
or reduction of a reserve must be based on a
reason. Jay Guenthner testified that he had a
reason for the creation and the reduction of
the reserves and that InaCom was adequate-
ly reserved. The SEC made no showing that
Guenthnerâs reason for releasing the reserve
was in any way inadequate or suspect.
Moreover, according to the judge, Paul
Anderson (the KPMG auditor) testified only
as a fact witness and not as an expert. Even
if he were qualified, and had been disclosed,
as an expert, his preliminary conclusions
that the three accounting procedures at issue
did not comply with GAAP do not amount
to proof of those conclusions because they
were admittedly preliminary and tentative-
ly. Moreover, any testimony by KPMG em-
ployees is suspect and cannot be afforded
much weight in view of the fact that KPMG
had considerable exposure to liability for the
fraud, if it were shown to have occurred. The
evidence showed that KPMG was aware of,
and approved, the accounting procedures that
it later professed, in hindsight, to have been
erroneous and improper.
The Daubert Tracker
The Daubert Tracker (www.dauberttracker.
com) is an online repository of Daubert doc-
uments including more than 14,000 court
decisions from 1993. A lawyer can check the
gatekeeping history of any expert before re-
tention or deposition. In mid-July of 2006,
there were 570 accounting decisions involving
Daubert actions. Of the 570 accounting dis-
putes, 314 experts were admitted (55%), 203
were denied (36%), and 53 were admitted/de-
nied in part (9.3%). A check of John Bazley
found no other Daubert action. Likewise, no
Daubert history was found on June 29, 2006,
for Kenneth Lehn and Paul Anderson.
Negative Daubert history, however, was
found for Harris Devor. In 1996, Mr. Devor
did not survive a motion in limine in L & M
Beverage Co. v. Guinness Import Co. (Jonasson
v. Lutheran Child and Family Servs., 1997),
where he calculated the annual net profit of
L & M that could have been expected to
earn on the brands of beer it sold to C &
M, and then multiplied this figure by a term
of years ranging from 15 to 35 years. The
District Court determined that the proper
measure of compensatory damages here was
âdiminution in value.â âThus, without ad-
dressing Guinnessâ many criticisms of Mr.
Devorâs qualifications and accounting meth-
odology, the court âgranted the motion to
deny Devorâs testimony.â
In a 2004 District Court dispute (U.S.
Dist., 1996), Mr. Devor was retained to give
his expert opinion on whether AICâs financial
statements were prepared in accordance with
Financial Accounting Standard No. 5. Judge
Laurie Smith Camp said that Devor did not
explain how he reached his ultimate opinions,
nor did he describe the analytical processes
he went through to reach his opinion. The
judge did not believe that Mr. Devorâs testi-
mony had been subjected to peer review.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit upheld
the inadmissibility of Mr. Devorâs affidavit
52 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER Summer 2008 www.acfei.com
6. because it was not supported by any meth-
odology and was not particularly helpful to
the court (In re Acceptance Ins. Cos., 2004).
Harris Devor took the shareholdersâ state-
ments as true and did not review the record
to see if the statements were supported. The
appellate court felt that his opinions were,
more or less, legal conclusions about the facts
of the dispute as presented to the experts by
the shareholders. When an expert's opinions
are little more than legal conclusions, a dis-
trict court should not be held to have abused
its discretion by excluding such statements
(Kinder v. Acceptance Ins. Cos., 2005).
There is another searchable database of
Daubert decisions called âDaubert on the
Web,â found at www.daubertontheweb.com.
This online free tracking service is, of course,
not as extensive as the Daubert Tracker. On
January 9, 2007, 87 cases were under the
field âAccountants and Economistsâ with an
admissibility rate of .595. Most of the deci-
sions involved economists.
There are a total of 25 fields on this online
database with various âadmissibility rates,â
such as
Appraisers 0.800
Computer experts 0.667
Criminologists 0.847
Marketing experts 0.333
Polygraphers 0.121
Statisticians 0.647
In Louisiana, there have been at least 33
Daubert challenges with a 60% admission rate.
Another Rejection
In another dispute involving accounts receiv-
able and a professor, a bankruptcy judge reject-
ed the professor. The judge said that Dr. James
A. Knoblett, CPA, had no education or experi-
ence in insolvency or bankruptcy accounting.
His report is even more conclusory and con-
tains even less explanation than Ms. Faulknerâs
report [another expert], and his deposition tes-
timony is even more damning (United States v.
Ingle, 1998). For example, Dr. Knoblett testi-
fied that he was not aware of any difference in
the treatment of contingent liabilities under the
Bankruptcy Code vis-a-vis under generally ac-
cepted accounting principles. He also accepted
WBIâs valuation of an account receivable owed
by a related party, without investigating to deter-
mine the collectibility of the receivable (or even
determining the identity of the related party to
evaluate whether the receivable should be in-
cluded in a consolidated balance sheet at all).
In addition, Dr. Knoblett did not investi-
gate Mr. Wilkinsonâs solvency, but he based his
conclusions regarding the values of the receiv-
able owed by Mr. Wilkinson and of the liability
represented by WBIâs guaranty of indebtedness
owed by Mr. Wilkinson solely on information
indicating that he had historically paid his debts.
Dr. Knoblett also acknowledged having no infor-
mation regarding the source of the funds used to
pay debts to WBI, so he could not confirm that
the debts were paid rather than refinanced. Also,
in deciding that there was a zero probability that
WBI would be called upon to honor its guaran-
ties of Mr. Wilkinsonâs debts, Dr. Knoblett gave
no consideration to whether the debts were in
fact called around the times of the transfers.
Thus, the court likewise concluded that the
defendant had not provided sufficient evidence
of the reliability of Dr. Knoblettâs testimony
to pass the Daubert/Kumho âgatekeeperâ test.
Accordingly, Dr. Knoblettâs report was exclud-
ed and did not, therefore, rebut the presump-
tion of insolvency in this dispute.
Conclusion
An expert witness must be truthful in the
courtroom as well as careful when preparing
his or her report. If an expert does not survive
a Daubert or Frye challenge, the other side can
use the Daubert Tracker to learn about the ex-
pertâs history easily. Any negative comments
about an expert can be harmful to the career
of an expert witness. For example, in a 2002
Tenth Circuit decision, the court said that
the expert used unreliable data, did not un-
derstand computers or the computer market,
changed his opinion from an earlier expert re-
port, and that his testimony was non-technical
(Lantec, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 2002).
On January 6, 2005, Andrea Yatesâ capital
murder conviction for drowning her children
was overturned by an appeals court because
of Dr. Park Dietzâs erroneous testimony about
a nonexistent TV episode on Law & Order.
His photo was shown on Fox News, and the
talking heads called him a âhired gun.â One
talking head said that âheâs dead.â
References
Barron v. Smith, 380 F.3d 49, 55-56 (1st
Cir. 2004).
Bary, C. (2004, September 24). Stewart ink-test trial
starts. Wall Street Journal, Câ4.
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 653, 141 L. Ed.
2d 540, 118 S. Ct. 2196 (1998).
California Pub. Employeeâs Ret. Sys. v. Chubb Corp.,
394 F.3d 127, 153 (3d Cir. 2004).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Decker v. GlenFed, Inc. (In re GlenFed, Inc. Sec.
Litig.), 42 F.3d 1541, 1549 (9th
Cir. 1994).
Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 214, 96
S. Ct. 1375, 47 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1976).
Estate of Bessie I. Mueller v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1992-284.
Estate of Jameson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1999-43.
Ferris, Baker Watts, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 395
F.3d 851, 854 (8th Cir. 2005).
Godchaux v. Conveying Techniques, Inc., 846 F.2d
306, 315 (5th
Cir. 1988).
Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc., 194 F.3d 185, 203 (1st
Cir. 1999).
In re Acceptance Ins. Cos., Sec Litig., 2004 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 26609.
In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation,
114 F.3d 1410, 1421 (3d Cir. 1997).
In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc., 277 F.3d 658,
673 (3d Cir. 2002).
In re K-tel Intâl, Inc. Sec. Litig., 300 F.3d 881, 888
(8th
Cir. 2002).
Jonasson v. Lutheran Child and Family Servs., 115
F.3d 436, 439 (8th
Cir. 1997).
Kinderv.AcceptanceIns.Cos.,423F
.3d899(CA-8,2005).
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Camichael, 526 U.S. 158,
119 S.Ct. 1167 (1999).
Lantec,Inc.v.Novell,Inc.,306F.3d1003(10th
Cir.,2002).
Malone v. Microdyne Corp., 26 F.3d 471, 478 (4th
Cir. 1994).
Raby, B.J.W., & Raby, W.L. (2003). Reasonable com-
pensation, expert witnesses, and the tax practitioner. Tax
Notes, 100(11), 1415.
Ricchiute, D.N. (2004). Effects of an attorneyâs line
of argument on accountantsâ expert witness testimony.
Accounting Review, 79(1), 221Â
â245.
Shalala v. Guernsey Memâl Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 101,
115 S. Ct. 1232, 131 L. Ed. 2s 106 (1995).
U.S. v. Beasley, 102 F.3d 1440, 1451 (8th
Cir. 1996).
U.S. Dist., 1996, LEXIS 9025.
U.S. v. Ingle, 157 F.3d 1152 (CA-8, 1998). n
About the Author
Earn CE Credit
To earn CE credit, complete the exam for this
article on page 47 or complete the exam on-
line at www.acfei.com (select âOnline CEâ).
Dr. D. Larry Crumbley, CPA, Cr.FA, is KPMG Endowed Professor at
Louisiana State University. He is the co-author of a book entitled
Forensic and Investigative Accounting, published by Commerce
Clearing House.
(800) 423-9737 Summer 2008 THE FORENSIC EXAMINER 53
View publication stats
View publication stats