Sunbeam’s auditor, Arthur Andersen, came under fire for having issued an unqualified opinion on the company’s financial statements for both 1996 and 1997. In January 1999 a class action lawsuit alleging violation of the federal securities laws was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Sunbeam, Arthur Andersen, and Sunbeam executives. The suit reached the settlement stage in 2001. As part of the settlement, Andersen agreed to pay \($110\) million.

Not surprisingly, Phillip Harlow, the engagement partner in charge of the Sunbeam audit during this period, also found himself under fire on an individual basis for his work on the audits. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) barred Harlow from serving as a public accountant for three years after it found that Harlow failed to exercise due professional care in auditing Sunbeam’s financial statements.4 The 1996 Audit Through the 1996 audit, Andersen partner Phillip Harlow allegedly became aware of several accounting practices that failed to comply with GAAP. In particular, he allegedly knew about Sunbeam’s improper restructuring costs, excessive litigation reserves, and an excessive cooperative advertising figure.
Improper Restructuring Costs During the 1996 audit, Harlow allegedly identified \($18.7\) million in items within Sunbeam’s restructuring reserve that were improperly classified as restructuring costs because they benefited Sunbeam’s future operations. Harlow proposed that the company reverse the improper accounting entries, but management rejected his proposed adjustments for these entries. Harlow relented on his demand after deciding that the items were immaterial for the 1996 financials.5 Excessive Litigation Reserves Sunbeam also failed to comply with GAAP on a \($12\) million reserve recorded for a lawsuit that alleged Sunbeam’s potential obligation to cover a portion of the cleanup costs for a hazardous waste site. Management did not take appropriate steps to determine whether the amount reflected a probable and reasonable estimate of the loss, as required by GAAP. Had it done so, the reserve would not have passed either of the criteria. The SEC determined that Harlow relied on statements from Sunbeam’s general counsel and did not take additional steps to determine whether the litigation reserve level was in accordance with GAAP.6 The 1997 Audit The SEC also found that Harlow discovered several items that were not compliant with GAAP during the 1997 audit. These items related to revenue, the.............

Case Questions

1. Consider the alleged accounting improprieties related to increased expenses from the 1996 audit. If you were auditing Sunbeam, what type of evidence would you like to review to determine whether Sunbeam had recorded the litigation reserve amount and the cooperative advertising amount in accordance with GAAP?
2. For the excessive litigation reserves and excessive cooperative advertising amount, identify the journal entry that is likely to have been proposed by Andersen to correct each of these accounting improprieties. Why would Sunbeam be interested in recording journal entries that essentially reduced its income before tax in 1996?
3. As discussed in the case, during both the 1996 and 1997 audits, Phillip Harlow allegedly discovered a number of different accounting entries made by Sunbeam that were not compliant with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Speculate about how Harlow might have explained his decision not to require Sunbeam to correct these alleged misstatements in the audit workpapers.
4. In the post-Sarbanes audit environment, which of the issues that arose in 1996 and 1997 would have to be reported to the audit committee at Sunbeam? Do you believe that communication to the audit committee would have made a difference in Harlow’s decision not to record the adjusting journal entries? Why or why not?