A case of conflicting interests
The collapse of Enron has led to an increased scepticism about the impartiality of expert witnesses operating from the big four accountants. But, writes Jan Harvey, that is not the prevailing view from inside the accountancy sector
For accountants 2001 was not a good year. After decades of quietly building up the widest-ranging professional services firms in the world, the big five – KPMG, Ernst & Young, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, PricewaterhouseCoopers, and, of course, Andersen – found their reputations under fire as the full implications of Andersen’s role in the collapse of Enron became clear.
This premium content is reserved for
Legal Week Subscribers.
Subscribe today and get 10% off.
A PREMIUM SUBSCRIPTION PROVIDES:
- Trusted insight, news and analysis from the UK and across the globe
- Connections to senior business lawyers within the leading law firms and legal departments
- Unique access to ALM's unrivalled, market-leading reporting in the US and Asia and cutting-edge research, including Legal Week's UK Top 50 and Global 100 rankings
- The Legal Week Daily News Alert, Editor's Highlights, and Breaking News digital newsletters and more, plus a choice of over 70 ALM newsletters
- Optimized access on all of your devices: desktop, tablet and mobile
- Complete access to the site's full archive of more than 56,000 articles
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate enquiries, please contact Paul Reeves on Preeves@alm.com or call on +44 (0) 203 875 0651