This is terrible reporting. What, exactly, did they do? Did they share an answer sheet? Was there a folder on the share labeled ‘ethics_answers’? Or was is a video walkthrough of the exam?
The writer writes a bunch of words talking about how bad it was, without telling the reader What It Was.
Journo school ain’t what it used to be.
Well, heck, if you can’t cheat on your ethics exam, what can you cheat on?
Every part of America is imploding.
Help a poor old man.
What the heck is an Ethics Exam?
Ernst & Young Agrees to Pay $99 Million in Lehman Settlement
Auditor Was Sued Over Investment Bank’s ‘Repo 105’ Transactions
By Michael Rapoport
Updated Oct. 18, 2013 4:57 pm ET
Ernst & Young LLP has agreed to pay $99 million to settle investor class-action allegations that it turned a blind eye when its audit client Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. misled investors before the investment bank’s 2008 collapse. . .
* * *
https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/journal-of-financial-crises/vol1/iss1/5/
The Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy D: The Role of Ernst & Young
Abstract
For many years prior to its demise, Lehman Brothers employed Ernst & Young (EY) as the firm’s independent auditors to review its financial statements and express an opinion as to whether they fairly represented the company’s financial position. EY was supposed to try to detect fraud, determine whether a matter should be publicly disclosed, and communicate certain issues to Lehman’s Board audit committee. After Lehman filed for bankruptcy, it was discovered that the firm had employed questionable accounting with regard to an unorthodox financing transaction, Repo 105, which it used to make its results appear better than they were. EY was aware of Lehman’s use of Repo 105, and its failure to disclose its use. EY also knew that Lehman included in its liquidity pool assets that were impaired. When questioned, EY insisted that it had done nothing wrong. However, Anton R. Valukas, the Lehman bankruptcy examiner, concluded that EY had not fulfilled its duties and that probable claims existed against EY for malpractice. In this case, participants will consider the role and effectiveness of independent auditors in ensuring complete and accurate financial statements and related public disclosure.
Does it have to dismiss—and refer for any appropriate prosecution—its cheating staffers (presumably including, by now, some partners)?
How about its liability to all its clients for having fraudulently presented its work and credentials? Many years of refunds from the firm all around?