Posts Tagged ‘Olympus’
Bloomberg reports Olympus Sued for $273 Million After 13-Year Fraud.
Six banks filed suit claiming 27.9 billion yen ($273M) damages from the drop in stock price after the fraud was disclosed.
The article says Olympus was sued in November 2012 by a group of investors. That claim was for 19.1B Yen ($186M). That one had been preceded by 14 other suits.
Suspended sentences all around.
The Bloomberg report, Ex-Olympus Chairman Gets Suspended Sentence for Fraud, says the three senior staff charged a year ago received suspended sentences after their guilty pleas.
The individuals and their sentences: Read the rest of this entry »
Wow! My guest post on the Olympus fraud, How Do You Hide A Multibillion Dollar Loss? Accounting For The Olympus Fraud, (link below) is at the top of Francine McKenna’s list of favorite posts for 2012.
Her comment: Read the rest of this entry »
“Exposure: Inside the Olympus Scandal: How I Went from CEO to Whistleblower“, from the former Olympus CEO Michael Woodford is out this week.
The first review I’ve seen is at The Economist: Paying a price for doing what’s right.
Associated Press reports the ex-president pled guilty to securities law violations. Two other senior staff pled guilty as well.
The AP report can be found in the Wall Street Journal article, Ex-President of Japan’s Olympus Pleads Guilty.
The Reuters report can be found in the New York Times article, Guilty Pleas in Trial Over Olympus Scandal.
The three individuals pleading guilty:
Japanese regulators slightly criticize Olympus auditors then say the corrective action plan they require wouldn’t have found the fraud anyway
Reuters reports that the Japanese regulator, Financial Service Agency, criticized KPMG and Ernst & Young for their audits of Olympus. Then they partially retracted their criticism.
The Reuters article, Japan regulator raps KPMG, Ernst & Young for Olympus work, says the two firms
…lacked operational management systems to ensure proper auditing that would spot and flag dubious transactions.
The regulators didn’t find any “intentional acts of grave negligence” according to the article.
I guess that means they should have had the foresight to develop some unidentified management system that would have identified the fraud.
The two firms have to develop a business improvement plan and report on their progress every six months.
An official then essentially retracted the criticism. Check out this comment: