Enron Scandal

The Department of Justice, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, The SEC, the Federal Energy Regulatory, and the US Attorney Office in NY, Houston and Denver, were studying the publicity held organization for fabricating false financial statements, mismanaging assets, doubtful accounting procedures, or misleading their shareholders and the public about the financial statements. Here are some organization that were investigated by the agencies that I mentioned above:

Between the years 2000 and 2002 there were over a dozen corporate scandals involving unethical corporate governance practices. The allegations ranged from faulty revenue reporting and falsifying financial records, to the shredding and destruction of financial documents (Patsuris, 2002). Most notably, are the cases involving Enron and Arthur Andersen. The allegations of the Enron scandal went public in October 2001. They included, hiding debt and boosting profits to the tune of more than one billion dollars. They were also accused of bribing foreign governments to win contacts and manipulating both the California and Texas power markets (Patsuris, 2002). Following these allegations, Arthur Andersen was investigated for, allegedly,

Enron was an energy trading and communications company located in Houston, Texas. During 1996-2001 Enron was given the name of America’s Most Innovative Company by Fortune magazine as it was the seventh-largest corporation in the US. The problem that led this company to bankruptcy was due to the fact that fraudulent accounting practices took place allowing Enron to overstate their earnings and tuck away their high debt liabilities in order to have a more appealing balance sheet (Forbes.com, 2002). Enron’s accounting team “cooked” the books to every meaning of the word so that their investors would not see anything wrong with the failing organization. This poorly structured company led people to jail time, unemployment, and caused retirement stocks to be dried up. Enron had a social responsibility to its stockholders and rather than being up front and honest about the failing company they hid every financial flaw in order to keep receiving money from its investors. By Enron not keeping a social

The word “fraud” was magnified in the business world around the end of 2001 and the beginning of 2002. No one had seen anything like it. Enron, one of the country’s largest energy companies, went bankrupt and took down with it Arthur Andersen, one of the five largest audit and accounting firms in the world. Enron was followed by other accounting scandals such as WorldCom, Tyco, Freddie Mac, and HealthSouth, yet Enron will always be remembered as one of the worst corporate accounting scandals of all time. Enron’s collapse was brought upon by the greed of its corporate hierarchy and how it preyed upon its faithful stockholders and employees who invested so much of their time and money into the company. Enron seemed to portray that the goal of corporate America was to drive up stock prices and get to the peak of the financial mountain by any means necessary. The “Conspiracy of Fools” is a tale of power, crony capitalism, and company greed that lead Enron down the dark road of corporate America.

The time frame is early 2002, and the news breaks worldwide. The collapse of corporate giants in America amidst fraud and stock manipulations surfaces. Enron, WorldCom, HealthSouth and later Adelphia are all suspected of the highest level of fraud, accounting manipulation, and unethical behavior. This is a dark time in history of Corporate America. The FBI and the CIA are doing investigations on all of these companies as it relates to unethical account practices, and fraud emerges. Investigations found that Enron, arguably the most well-known, had long shredding sessions of important documents and gross manipulation of stocks and bonds. This company alone caused one of the biggest economic

Enron’s fraudulent financial practices lead to the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002. Mistakes made by the company and their leadership shocked the world and cost billions. Enron’s leadership could have taken steps to prevent or mitigate the repercussions of their actions. The act restored ethical and reliable financial practices to the market.The major provisions of the act made corporations responsibility for financial reports, and required internal and external audits. The Act changed the accounting regulatory environment. And although corporations incurred the additional expense of audit and new reporting standards, these changes restored consumer investing confidence, strengthening the corporations and the stock market overall. (Flanigan, 2002.)

In the case of Enron’s collapse, many would blame the external auditor’s collusion with the management, the aggressive accounting policy it had adopted to manipulate its earnings or the Special Purpose Entity (SPE) it had created as a sham to conceal its debts. However, everything began from an internal environment with weak controls.

Several parties were responsible for Enron crisis, including independent auditor, key executive officers, internal auditors, SEC and FASB. The hypocrisy, dishonorable actions and unethical behavior of Kenney Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Andrew Fastow led to bankruptcy. This and many other problems, such as loss in transactions involving the swaps stocks, SPE related issues and est., finally contributed to crisis. As Enron executives, all of their concerns should have been focused on Enron’s profits, but seems that many of them only cared about their wealth. When financial problem surfaced, they did not attempt to fix it, but made efforts to maintain their own benefits and ignored the whole company’s and

Enron Corporation was an energy company founded in Omaha, Nebraska. The corporation chose Houston, Texas to home its headquarters and staffed about 20,000 people. It was one of the largest natural gas and electricity providers in the United States, and even the world. In the 1990’s, Enron was widely considered a highly innovative, financially booming company, with shares trading at about $90 at their highest points. Little did the public know, the success of the company was a gigantic lie, and possibly the largest example of white-collar crime in the history of business.

Most of the world has heard of Enron, the American, mega-energy company that “cooked” their books (Gupta, Weirich & Turner, 2013) and cost their investors billions of dollars in lost earnings and retirement funds. While much of the controversy surrounding the Enron scandal focused on the losses of investors, unethical practices of executives and questionable accounting tactics, there were many others within close proximity to the turmoil. It begs the question- who was really at fault and what has been done to prevent it from happening again?

Unfortunately, scandals like Enron are not isolated incidents and the last decade has offered Americans a disheartening perspective with comparable scandals like that of WorldCom and Tyco, Sunbeam, Global Crossing and many more. Companies have a concrete responsibility not just to their investors but to society as a whole to have practices which deter corporate greed and looting and which actively and effectively work to prevent such things from happening. This

In light of the recent scandals that rose around big multinationals such as Enron and WorldCom, it has become evident that reform in the traditional corporate operations and objectives was to be encompassed in the organisations corporate strategies. Indeed throughout the years, companies main objectives were defined primarily as being economic objectives, Multinationals developed with sight of profit maximisations regardless to the other incentives, Friedman considered that to be the foundation for a well-managed company, it was further considered that the financing of any other sort of social corporate activities rather unnecessary. The expenses were regarded as expenditures for the owners and investors; this was a time where shareholders rights were regarded as conflicting with other constituents namely the employees, creditors, customers or the community in general. However this interpretation is seen as rather inadequate due to the nature of the amalgamated relation between both constituents. Stakeholders in modern corporate doctrine are considered as a core apparatus for the well functioning of a business. It is however often argued that the only way for a corporation to achieve better results and maximise its profits is to include other people in the process, individuals or organisations with direct or indirect interest in the well performance of the company, that is the reason why modern regulations and codes include a number of stakeholders other than the

Most of the world has heard of Enron, the American, mega-energy company that “cooked their books” ( ) and cost their investors billions of dollars in lost earnings and retirement funds. While much of the controversy surrounding the Enron scandal focused on the losses of investors, unethical practices of executives and questionable accounting tactics, there were many others within close proximity to the turmoil. It begs the question- who was really at fault and what has been done to prevent it from happening again?

The downfall of Enron also illustrates both the importance of corporate governance to corporate performance, and the inherent susceptibility to corruption present in any system of corporate governance. Further, from an international perspective, one is tempted to ask whether the Enron debacle could happen in Europe or Japan or whether it demonstrates a vulnerability unique to the U.S. system of corporate governance. I have three observations to make on this issue. First and foremost, the Enron fiasco demonstrates the acute pressure felt by U.S. corporate management to produce superior performance results. As discussed later in this Article, Enron 's financial maneuvering, which led to the company 's massive 2001 restatement of earnings, was prompted only in 1997 when Enron came under significant pressure from investors. Essentially, Enron 's corporate performance was consistent for a considerable period of time prior to 1997. 4 However, between 1996 and 1997, the firm 's profits and return on equity each declined by ninety percent. 5 The sudden deterioration in performance pressured management to engage in transactions that increased revenue and moved debt off of the firm 's

"The secret of success is honesty and fair dealing," Mark Twain, once said. "If you can fake these, you 've got it made."