Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Brief of Arthur Anderson LLP v. United States

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Brief the Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States case and discuss whether or not you agree with the courts decision, and discuss any implications the court's ruling might have.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 2:06 am ad1c9bdddf
    https://brainmass.com/business/business-law/brief-of-arthur-anderson-llp-v-united-states-438388

    Solution Preview

    Brief of Arthur Anderson LLP v. United States

    In the Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States case (544 U.S. 696 (2005) Supreme Court), the plaintiff in the case, Andersen, plead to the Supreme Court that the accounting firms conviction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas was flawed based on the instructions given to the jury on what criteria to use for conviction (CongressDaily, 2005). In Andersen's defense motion, the accounting firm claimed that the charge by the Texas Jury of obstruction of justice was not an accurate portrayal of the actual law that they were charged with breaking.

    The law that Andersen was being accused of breaking was intentionally instructing its employees at the accounting firm to shred all Enron related documents upon realizing that a potential investigation was pending by the Securities and Exchange Commission into Enron's improper accounting practices. Upon realizing the documents had been shredded, Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security under President George ...

    Solution Summary

    In the Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States case (544 U.S. 696 (2005) Supreme Court), the plaintiff in the case, Andersen, plead to the Supreme Court that the accounting firms conviction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas was flawed based on the instructions given to the jury on what criteria to use for conviction (CongressDaily, 2005). In Andersen's defense motion, the accounting firm claimed that the charge by the Texas Jury of obstruction of justice was not an accurate portrayal of the actual law that they were charged with breaking.

    $2.19

    ADVERTISEMENT