Talk:Arthur Andersen
Latest comment: 3 months ago by 2604:3D09:D78:1000:1075:CB3:E575:5AA1 in topic This article gives the impression that somebody was found guilty
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||
 | Business: Accounting Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | |
| This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. |
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
Duplication
editIn the "Enron Scandal" section of this article there are these two extracts which pretty-much duplicate one another:
- Because the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will not accept audits from convicted felons, the firm agreed to surrender its CPA licenses and its right to practice before the SEC on August 31, 2002—effectively putting the firm out of business. It had already started winding down its American operations after the indictment, and many of its accountants joined other firms.
- In 2002, just nine months after the scandal broke, the firm was found guilty of crimes in the auditing of Enron. By that time, Arthur Andersen had lost most of its business and two-thirds of its 28,000 employees, and was facing multi-million dollar lawsuits. On August 31, 2002, the company surrendered its licenses to practice as certified public accountants in the United States, effectively putting the company out of business.
Is there any scope for merging them together, perhaps presenting the section chronologically? AndyJones (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Seems like we're all about the fact that the form was legally dissolved and don't care what happened to anybody working there.
editDissolving a corporation is just legal paperwork but it seems like it's the center of this article. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:1075:CB3:E575:5AA1 (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
This article gives the impression that somebody was found guilty
editBut it doesn't say when that happened or who the judge was or anything. 2604:3D09:D78:1000:1075:CB3:E575:5AA1 (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)