Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
WASHINGTON
CASE
Suzette
Washington
financed
her
college
education
by
working
as
an
inventory
clerk
for
Bertolinis.
a
clothing
store
chain
located
in
the
southeastern
USA.
Bertolini
caters
primarily
to
fashion
conscious
young
men
and
women.
The
companys
store
carry
a
wide
range
of
clothing
including
casual
wear,
business
suits
and
accessories.
The
Bertolinis
store
for
which
Suzette
worked
is
located
a
few
blocks
from
the
campus
of
the
large
state
university
that
she
attended.
Except
for
the
management
personnel,
most
of
Bertolinis
employees
are
college
students.
Suzettes
best
friend
and
roommate,
Paula
Kaye,
work
for
Bertolinis
as
a
sales
clerk.
Paula
majored
in
marketing,
while
Suzette
was
an
accounting
major.
During
Suzettes
senior
year
in
college,
Bertolinis
began
experiencing
abnormally
high
inventory
shrinkage
in
the
stores
three
departments
that
stocked
mens
apparel.
Suzettes
supervisor,
an
assistant
store
manager,
confided
her
that
he
believed
one
or
more
of
the
sales
clerks
were
stealing
merchandise.
Over
lunch
one
day
in
the
student
union,
Suzette
casually
mentioned
the
inventory
problem
to
Paula.
Paula
quickly
changed
the
subject
by
asking
Suzette
about
her
plans
for
the
weekend.
Paula,
rewind
for
just
a
second.
Do
you
know
something
that
I
dont?
Huh?
What
do
you
mean?
Missing
inventory.shrinkagetheft?
After
a
few
awkward
moments,
Paula
stopped
eating
and
looked
squarely
into
her
friends
eyes.
Suzette,
I
dont
know
if
its
true,
but
Ive
heard
a
rumor
that
Alex
and
Matt
are
stealing
a
few
things
each
week.
Polo
shirts,
silk
ties,
jeans.
Occasionally,
they
take
something
expensive,
like
hand-knit
sweater
or
sport
jackets.
How
are
they
doing
it?
Ive
heard-and
dont
repeat
any
of
this
now-Ive
heard
that
a
couple
of
times
per
week.
Alex
stashes
one
or
two
items
at
the
bottom
of
the
trash
container
beneath
the
number
two
cash
register.
Then
Matt,
you
know
he
empties
the
trash
every
night
in
the
dumpster
out
in
the
alley,
takes
the
items
out
and
puts
them
into
his
car.
Paula,
we
cant
let
them
get
away
with
this.
We
have
to
tell
someone.
No,
we
arent.
Remember,
this
is
just
a
rumor.
I
dont
know
that
its
true.
If
you
tell
a
manager,
there
will
be
questions.
And
more
questions.
May
be
the
police
will
be
brought
in.
You
know
that
eventually
someones
going
to
find
out
who
told.
And
thenslashed
tiredphone
call
in
middle
of
the
night.
So,
dont
get
involved?
Dont
do
anything?
Just
let
those
guys
keep
stealing?
Suze,
you
work
in
inventory.
You
know
the
markup
they
put
on
those
clothes.
They
expect
to
lose
a
few
things
here
and
there
to
employees.
Maybe
the
markup
wouldnt
be
so
high
if
theft
wasnt
a
problem
Now,
there
was
no
doubt
in
Paulas
mind
that
Suzette
was
going
to
report
the
alleged
theft
scheme
to
management.
Two
months
Suze.
Two
months
till
we
graduate.
Can
you
wait
till
then
to
spill
the
beans?
Then
we
can
move
out
of
state
before
our
cars
are
spray-painted.
One
week
following
Suzette
and
Paulas
conversation,
a
Bartolinis
store
manager
received
an
anonymous
typed
message
that
revealed
the
two
person
theft
ring
rumored
to
be
operating
within
the
store.
Bertolinis
immediately
retained
a
private
detective.
Over
a
four
week
period,
the
detective
documented
USD500
of
merchandise
theft
by
Alex
and
Matt.
After
Bertolinis
notified
the
police,
the
district
attorney
filed
criminal
charges
against
the
two
young
men.
A
plea
bargain
agreement
arranged
by
their
attorneys
resulted
in
suspended
prison
sentences
for
Alex
and
Matt.
The
items
of
that
agreement
included
making
restitution
to
Bertolinis,
completing
several
hundred
hours
of
community
service
and
a
lengthy
period
of
probation.
Questions
1. What
would
you
do
if
you
found
yourself
in
a
situation
similar
to
that
faced
by
Suzette
in
this
case?
2. Do
you
believe
that
it
was
appropriate
for
Suzette
to
report
alleged
theft
ring
to
store
manager?
Would
it
have
been
unethical
for
Suzette
not
to
report
the
rumored
theft
ring?
3. Briefly
explain
internal
control
activities
that
might
have
been
prevented
the
theft
losses
suffered
by
Bertolinis.
auditing
standards.
Most
important,
SEC
charged
that
Goodbread
caused
Deloitte
&
Touche
issued
an
improper
opinion
on
Kogers
1990
financial
statements.
Instead
of
the
unqualified
opinion
issued
on
those
financial
statements,
SEC
maintained
that
a
disclaimer
opinion
had
been
required
given
the
circumstances.
Following
its
investigation
of
the
matter,
SEC
publicly
censured
Goodbread.
The
embarrassing
revelation
of
Goodbreads
ownership
interest
in
Koger
marked
the
beginning
of
long
series
of
problems
that
Deloitte
&
Touche
encountered
with
the
audit
client.
In
September
1991,
Koger
filed
for
bankruptcy.
A
short
time
earlier,
Kogers
shareholders
had
filed
a
large
class
action
lawsuit
against
Deloitte
&
Touche.
The
suit
alleged
that
the
1989
Koger
audit
performed
by
Deloitte,
Haskins
&
Sells
and
the
1990
Koger
audit
completed
by
Deloitte
&
Touche
were
deficient.
Those
deficient
audits
allegedly
contributed
to
subsequent
decline
in
Kogers
stock
price.
Questions:
1. The
SEC
charged
that
Goodbread
violated
its
independence
rules.
Explain
the
SECs
rationale
in
making
those
allegations.
2. In
your
opinion,
did
Goodbreads
equity
interest
in
Koger
likely
qualify
as
a
material
investment
for
him?
3. Given
that
Goodbread
purchased
stock
of
Koger
in
1988,
under
what
conditions,
if
any,
could
he
have
later
served
as
the
audit
engagement
partner
for
the
company.
hardworking
and
dedicated
employee
of
the
large
accounting
firm.
He
had
never
turned
down
a
difficult
assignment,
never
complained
about
the
long
hours
his
work
required
and
made
countless
personal
sacrifices-the
most
recent
being
the
missed
birthday
party.
After
informing
Tollison
of
the
bad
news,
Linton
had
encouraged
him
to
stay
with
the
firm.
Linton
promised
that
the
following
year
he
would
vigorously
campaign
for
Tollisons
promotion
including
calling
in
all
favors
owed
to
him
by
partners
in
other
offices.
Despite
that
promise,
Tollison
realized
that
he
had
only
minimal
chance
of
being
promoted
to
partner
the
following
year.
Seldom
were
two-time
ticketed
for
promotion.
Although
he
had
hoping
for
the
best,
Tollison
had
not
expected
a
favorable
report
from
the
Partner
Selection
Committee.
In
recent
weeks,
he
had
gradually
admitted
to
himself
that
he
did
not
have
a
profile
for
which
the
committee
was
searching.
Tollison
was
not
a
rainmaker
like
his
friend,
Craig
Allen,
audit
manager,
whose
name
appeared
in
the
roster
of
new
partners.
Allen
was
a
member
of
several
important
civic
organizations
and
had
a
network
of
well-
connected
friends
at
local
country
club.
Those
connections
had
served
Allen
well,
allowing
him
to
steer
several
new
clients
to
the
firm
in
recent
years.
Tollison
was
a
technician.
If
someone
in
the
office
had
a
difficult
accounting
or
auditing
issue
to
resolve,
that
individual
went
first
to
Tollison.
When
a
new
client
posed
complex
technical
issues,
the
engagement
partner
always
nearly
requested
Tollison
be
assigned
to
the
job.
Tollison
was
mico
managed
his
jobs,
insisting
being
involved
in
every
aspects
of
them.
To
avoid
missing
deadlines,
Tollison
and
team
would
work
excessive
overtime,
including
long
weekend.
Questions
1. Do
you
believe
Tallison
was
qualified
for
partner
position?
2. Did
the
firm
treat
him
fairly?
Why
or
why
not?
3. Identify
some
criteria
you
believe
large
firm
should
use
when
evaluating
individual
for
promotion
to
partner.