Case $4\mathrm{.}24.$ Arthur Andersen: A Fallen Giant When a law firm reviewed who knew what and when in the lead$-$up to the Enron collapse and bankruptcy, the firm concluded that Andersen was aware of all of the off$-$the$-$book partnerships that had been created, noting that it appeared that the documents had been reviewed by Andersen. What factors contributed to Andersen$$s failure to do more regarding the off$-$the$-$book entities and other accounting issues at Enron? Based on what you have learned in Units $1$ and $2,$ discuss what reasoning processes and rationalizations those at Andersen may have been using. Now, think about the Penn State case $($Case $2\mathrm{.}10)$ and how leaders there framed the issue. Then determine how the Andersen partners were framing the Enron issue. Is it difficult to envision bad outcomes or is judgment clouded when you are under pressure or are concerned about your job? How would a credo help when you are evaluating an issue with serious personal and business consequences?