What if Andersen had shredded in Toronto or Calgary? The potential criminal liability of Canadian public accounting firms

Canadian Accounting Perspectives

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 59-84

  Gunz, Sally P ^a   Salterio, Steven E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^b QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Andersen; Criminal law; Enron; Obstruction of justice

Indexed keywords

EID: 2642541502     PISSN: 14998653     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1506/60BY-FE6W-W2MW-UR4X     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Arens, A., K. Loebbecke, W. M. Lemon, and G. Splettsoesser. 2002. Auditing and other assurance services, Canadian 9th ed. Toronto: Prentice Hall.
2. Callen, J. L., and M. Morel. 2002. The Enron-Andersen debacle: Do equity markets react to auditor reputation? Working paper, University of Toronto.
3. Che, Y. K., and J. G. Yi. 1993. The role of precedents in repeated litigation. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 9 (2): 399-424.
4. Criminal Code of Canada. RSC 1985, c. C-46, as amended.
5. Dallas, L. L. 2002. A preliminary inquiry into the responsibility of corporations and their directors and officers for corporate climate: The psychology of Enron's demise. St. John's Law Review Symposium.
6. Daughety, A. F. 2000. Settlement. In Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, vol. v, eds. B. Bouckaert and G. DeGeest, 95-158. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
7. DeFond, M., and K. Subramanyam. 1998. Auditor changes and discretionary accruals. Journal of Accounting and Economics 25 (1): 35-67.
8. Deis, D., and G. Giroux. 1996. The effect of auditor changes on audit fees, audit hours, and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 15 (1): 55-76.
9. Duplessis, D., S. Enman, S. Gunz, and S. O'Byrne. 2001. Canadian business and the law. Toronto: Nelson.
10. Economist. 2002. A stigma that never fades. 364 (8285): 40.
11. Flood, M. 2003. Court may be likely to overturn Andersen verdict. Houston Chronicle, October 10. Available online at http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ ssistory.mpl/special/enron/2145950/ as of February 2, 2004.
12. Fox, L. 2003. Enron: The rise and fall. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
13. Francis, D. 1997. Bre-X: The inside story. Toronto: Key Porter Books.
14. Gall, G. L. 1995. The Canadian legal system, 4th ed. Calgary: Carswell.
15. Goold, D., and A. Willis. 1997. The Bre-X fraud. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart.
16. Gray, J. 2000. The great escape. Canadian Business 73 (22): 131.
17. Gray, J. 2002. Home-grown accounting scandals. Canadian Business 75 (6): 32.
18. Jenkins, G. J. 2003. The Enron collapse. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. Johnson, A. 1999. The last refuge of scoundrels. Canadian Business 72 (1): 4.
20. Loewenstein, G., S. Issacharoff, C. Camerer, and L. Babcock. 1993. Self-serving assessments of fairness and pretrial bargaining. Journal of Legal Studies 22 (1): 135-59.
21. Lorinc, J. 2002. After Enron. CA Magazine 135 (10): 21-6.
22. MacIntosh, J. G. 1999. Lessons of Bre-X(?): Some comments. Canadian Business Law Journal 32 (2): 223-40.
23. McCoy, K. 2002. Andersen hires Volcker to restore confidence. USA Today. Available online at http://www.usatoday.com/money/energy/2002-02-03-andersen- volcker.htm#more.
24. McKenna, B. 2002. Canadians need an Andersen case to reveal our rot. Globe and Mail, October 18, B9.
25. McRoberts, F. 2002. The fall of Andersen. Chicago Tribune. Available online at http://pqask.pqarchiver.com/chicagotrib as of March 1, 2003.
26. Nicholls, C. C. 1999. The Bre-X hoax: A South-east Asian bubble. Canadian Business Law Journal 32 (2): 172-222.
27. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Criminal Law Division. 2002. Practice Memorandum: Charge screening. October 1.
28. Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). 1998. Statement of priorities for fiscal 1998/99. Available online at http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/about/ Publications/annual_report_1998.html.
29. Paskell-Mede, M. 1999. Cross-border lawsuits. CA Magazine 132 (3): 37-8.
30. Reinstein, A., and J. J. McMillan. 2002. The Enron debacle: More than a perfect storm. Working paper, Wayne State University.
31. Rollins, T. P., and W. G. Bremser. 1997. The SEC's enforcement actions against auditors: An auditor reputation and institutional theory perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 8 (3): 191-206.
32. Rosen, A. 2001. Easy prey. Canadian Business 74 (7): 12.
33. Rosen, A. 2002. Out on a limb. Canadian Business 75 (19): 45.
34. Schepp, D. 2002. Andersen trial starts with a bang. BBC News. Available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1974135.stm.
35. Wilson, G. P. 2002. Don't throw out the reporting baby with the Enron bath water: Critical considerations when reforming the reporting system. Financial Reporting, BDO Seidman, April 22.
36. Witt, A., and P. Behr. 2002. Losses, conflicts threaten survival. washingtonpost.com, July 31. Available online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ ac2/wp-dyn/ as of March 1, 2003.