Enron yet to be charged as Justice indicts entire Andersen firm.
Full disclosure: Andersen’s problems have given my current firm opportunities to gain new business and decreased competition on new, non-Andersen related proposals. Additionally, I am a consultant working for a Big 5 (big 4?) accounting firm.
I read Lou Dobbs commentary with interest. I think he makes some good points, but I also think he leaves out some facts that would help readers draw conclusions. To wit:[ul]
[li]Likely, the Justice Department is preparing a slam-dunk of a case against Enron, and is taking the necessary time to do so[/li][li]Andersen has prodded the Justice Department to get everything over with quickly, believing (probably rightly so) that if they can win, best to get it done fast[/li][li]However, this is not the first time Andersen has played outside the rules (Waste Management, Sunbeam). Is this a cultural problem within Andersen as a firm versus a localized problem?[/li][li]Dobbs complains that Microsoft was let off the hook (I’m not contesting that). However, should Andersen fold, there are companies in place to pick up the business tomorrow. If Microsoft folds, there may be much cheering, but the effects are far greater than simply their Redmond campus. Andersen doesn’t directly touch most people’s daily lives; MSFT does.[/li][/ul]
Am I missing anything? Actually, I’m probably missing a lot, but that’s why I’m posting. How do others feel about Andersen’s indictment, as a national firm versus an individual office? Right? Wrong? Don’t care, hand me another beer?
Please note when formulating your replies that I’m not taking a stand for or against Andersen’s indictment, nor for or against Justice’s handling of Microsoft. These issues are too complex for me to wrap myself around and form an informed opinion, and I’m not emotionally invested in any outcome. I do, however, wish to read some more back-and-forth on the Andersen indictment.