Halliburton Responds to Larry Klayman's Supersillyous Suit(My Title)

CBS Market Watch "Big Charts" Web Site ^ | 7/10/2002 | MarketWatch.com

[terilyn]

"I wonder if Larry's girlfriend is a blonde??"

I don't know, but I'm pretty positive Larry is!

[terilyn]

ROFLOL!

I can see Larry jumping around, "Free Money! The government will give you free money!"

[terilyn]

Did you miss the part of the thread where FIJC said that Larry went and found the "Investors pissed off for their loss of investments".

Nobody came to Larry or anybody else for that matter because they were mad with their Halliburton investments. One of the two plaintiffs was actually profitable at the time of the suit.

Larry sent out a broadcast email to all of his supporters trolling for somebody that owned the stock that would sign on. Larry couldn't sue without a plaintiff so he had to hunt one down.

Larry Klayman is the National Enquirer of the legal world.

[Howlin]

My question now is, after the SEC finds that Halliburton has done nothing wrong, will Larry continue his suit? Will he claim it's a whitewash and send out a FLASH FUND RAISING letter, saying "I need your help to fight the Bush administration's corruption by denying me my case?"

[terilyn]

Without a doubt.

You can view the Halliburton 1998 annual report online. I've just been looking at it and there are reams of items relating to their acquisition of Dresser and changes that were made to account for that.

I'm not an accountant, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it would be great if someone who knows this stuff would take a look and see if they can find the place where the specific item Larry is squawking about can be found, posted, proved and debunked.

The home page of their annual report is here:

http://www.freeedgar.com/search/ViewFilings.asp?CIK=45012&Directory=45012&Year=99&SECIndex=5&Extension=.tst&PathFlag=0&TextFileSize=760833&SFType=&SDFiled=&DateFiled=3/23/1999&SourcePage=FilingsResults&UseFrame=1&OEMSource=&FormType=10-K&CompanyName=HALLIBURTON+CO

If you can't get to it from there, yikes it's a long link, you can register for free at www.freeedgar.com or FReepmail me and I'll help you get on.

[terilyn]

Oh, and it will go absolutely nowhere, (the claim and renewed call to investigate Bush). The only place anything will go is more poor suckers money into Larry's pockets.

Larry Klayman is the National Enquirer of the legal world.

(My new catch phrase) Like it?

[Texasforever]

I am waiting for the Brit Humme transcript of tonight’s show to be put up on their site. He had an attorney/accountant that explained the Halliburton accounting change that is in agreement with what I have been saying. Bottom line, the changes actually made Halliburton's reporting MORE accurate and gave investors a better picture of the company's bottom line. Also, he stated that 10 of the 15 top construction companies in the country use the same accounting methods.

[Howlin]

I heard it myself. Ken Kies with the Federal Policy something.

Ping me when you find it.

[habs4ever]

3000 here we come!!

[terilyn]

I didn't hear it, I got home late tonight. I'll be sure to watch the replay.

Would you please ping me when you find it?

Thank you!

[terilyn]

Let's give Iwo a fighting chance then shall we?

[Howlin]

Mr. Keis laid it out very plainly, nothing here; only problem is when Halliburton notified the SEC of their change in procedures; 10 out of 15 companies do it.

And don't forget, Larry's "clients" bought their stock THIS YEAR.........duh.

[Texasforever]

Deport posted this on another thread but it says basically the same thing

Business Week .. has a little for all

---

Despite all the political flak Cheney is taking, Halliburton's shift may actually have improved its bookkeeping. But the timing raises questions: Without the change, Halliburton's already depressed 1998 profits would have fallen far short of Wall Street's targets. And the SEC can't overlook the delay of more than a year before Halliburton told investors that its accounting had changed.

At issue is how Halliburton accounts for cost overruns and changes on its billion-dollar contracts to build such projects as offshore drilling platforms or liquid natural-gas plants. Until 1998, the company wouldn't report revenue from such claims until the customer agreed to pay--which could take years. But since 1998, Halliburton has estimated how much of the disputed costs it expects to collect and booked the not-yet-received payment immediately. For 1998, Halliburton booked $89 million in pretax revenue as unpaid claims. Similar claims added $43 million to revenue in 1999 and $102 million in 2001; there was no impact in 2000.

While it's aggressive, Halliburton's switch is supported by a 1981 accounting rule because it helps meet accountants' goal of matching revenues with associated costs as they occur, says Douglas R. Carmichael, an accounting professor at Baruch College. Ten of the 15 largest construction companies use the method Halliburton adopted in 1998, says Halliburton CFO Douglas L. Foshee.

Halliburton must prove to the SEC that its collection estimates were reasonable. "If it looks like they were just fabricating the numbers, that verges on fraud," says J. Edward Ketz, professor of accounting at Penn State University. Foshee says the company has an "extremely sophisticated model" for estimates and that projections were sound.

[Torie]

The failure to disclose for a year thingie strikes me as a huge problem as an initial matter. The change in earnings over two time periods is not longer an apples to apples comparison. That surely must be disclosed. Something must be missing here though, because if that is what occurred, I am sure Halliburton would have been sued long ago (as soon as the change was disclosed a year late).

[terilyn]

Thanks for posting that.

What do you think? Is reporting the change in your annual report, (which came out 3/23/99) acceptable or pushing the envelope?

[Texasforever]

That surely must be disclosed. Something must be missing here though, because if that is what occurred, I am sure Halliburton would have been sued long ago (as soon as the change was disclosed a year late).

Not too hard to explain. Remember that Halliburton did not take over until Sept. of 98. To that point Dresser was still reporting earnings the old way. I am not sure the time span between the Sept. statement and the next one. I don't believe it was a year though. Remember that the 1998 earnings were greatly affected by the merger costs and a half a billion charge off for reorganization costs. 1998 earnings have to be viewed as bifurcated, pre and post merger.

[terilyn]

That's really the kicker isn't it. Buy your stock 2 to 2 1/2 years after the change was reported and then sue over it.

[deport]

do you have dates of when the two made their purchases? Not alledged but dates.... did 'eww' include the dates in his massive filing? Just curious

[woofie]

Fox did a good job of covering this,in essence ...this is a molehill

[Texasforever]

Yes because that was actually the first actual reporting period that Halliburton was in full control of the merged company. Remember that the merger was not complete until 9/98. Prior to that Halliburton and Dresser were issuing their own reports.