London Wedding Photographer -Wedding Photographer London
Hats off to this photography staff. Awesome.
GingerZ
Information & discussion on: Photography, Science(s), Economy, Discovery, Sailing & Sound-boarding.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Lets Not Forget the Photographers Who Put Themselves On The Line Every Day
TIM HETHERINGTON
Last week, on 4/20/2011: "Conflict photographer Tim Hetherington was killed in Libya's third-largest city, Misurata, during his coverage of the Libya conflict. He is known for directing and producing the film "Restrepo" as well as photographing (and raising the visibility of) major world conflicts in Liberia and Afghanistan Darfur."
Last week, on 4/20/2011: "Conflict photographer Tim Hetherington was killed in Libya's third-largest city, Misurata, during his coverage of the Libya conflict. He is known for directing and producing the film "Restrepo" as well as photographing (and raising the visibility of) major world conflicts in Liberia and Afghanistan Darfur."
Litigation Piling Up At Ernst & Young
Article by Francine McKenna
ACCOUNTING WATCHDOG
April 26, 2011 - 12:36 p.m.
Image Via Wikipedia
I’d rather see than be you, Ernst & Young.
As if the global audit firm didn’t have enough to worry about, now there’s a backdating case, arisen from the grave, threatening a jury trial.
That’s just unheard of.
From the Los Angeles Times on April 15, 2011:
Accounting firm Ernst & Young must face a class action suit over option backdating at Broadcom Corp., a federal appeals court has ruled, saying the auditors knew or should have known about the resulting misrepresentations in the Irvine tech company’s financial statements.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated Ernst & Young as a defendant in the investor lawsuit, overturning a 2009 decision by U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real…The auditors “apparently accepted management at its word, never received requested documentation and issued an unqualified opinion on the accuracy of Broadcom’s financial statements,” the panel said, adding that the accounting firm’s audit “amounted to no audit at all.”
There it is again. The deadly, “no audit at all” phrase.
Ernst & Young is already defending against it in the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General for the Lehman failure. Ernst & Young recently petitioned to have that case moved to federal court and to a more friendly judge, Lewis Kaplan. The New York Attorney General filed their brief on March 18 but there’s no word yet on the court’s decision.
A move to federal court would make it easier for Ernst & Young to rid itself of the Martin Act - the broad, powerful anti-fraud statute the state is using to eliminate their need to prove scienter.
"Lyle Roberts in the 10b-5 Daily blog:
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), plaintiffs must plead facts creating a strong inference that the defendants acted with scienter (i.e., fraudulent intent) to survive a motion to dismiss.
There’s a growing trend for plaintiffs’ lawyers to use the “no audit at all” approach to survive motions to dismiss in auditor liability cases. Deloitte will also face a jury – unless they settle first – in litigation related to their audit client Bear Stearns. By proving auditors were so reckless in their negligence that it amounted to “no audit at all”, there’s a lesser burden to prove fraudulent intent before proceeding to discovery and, possibly, a trial.
The SEC and PCAOB issued disciplinary orders against Price Waterhouse (PW) India for the Satyam fraud that did not rely on proving scienter. PW India had performed not only very poorly with regard to their audit client Satyam but, in general, throughout their Indian practice.
Section 10A(a) of the Exchange Act requires each audit to include procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance of detecting illegal acts that would have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. No showing of scienter is necessary to establish a violation of Section 10A.
The plaintiffs in the Broadcom case piled on the evidence in their appeal. They successfully convinced the appeals court of Ernst & Young’s possible complicity, at least as a result of their reckless negligence, in the backdating violations that led to significant restatements.
Ernst & Young is going to trial – unless they settle first.
From Lyle Roberts’ 10b-5 Daily blog:
The court found that each of the following three allegations, whether taken individually or viewed collectively, were sufficient to find a strong inference that E&Y had acted with scienter:
(1) E&Y knew the material consequences of a May 2000 backdated option grant that would have resulted in a $700 million charge to Broadcom’s financial results but, despite violations of GAAS, signed off on the grant without obtaining documentation;
(2) E&Y knew that several significant option grants in 2001 were approved on dates when Broadcom’s compensation committee was not legally constituted due to the death of one of the two committee members; and
(3) E&Y presided over corrective reforms in 2003 to prevent and detect any future instances of improper stock option awards without questioning the integrity of Broadcom’s accounting for options granted prior to the corrective reforms.
The court also examined several other factual allegations related to scienter, including allegations of insufficient documentation, weak internal controls, and red flags related to Broadcom’s stock option grants.
And how did Ernst & Young’s lawyers defend the firm? They questioned the contention that the same Ernst &Young partners who participated in Broadcom’s 2005 audit were aware of the earlier alleged backdating that impacted Broadcom’s 2005 consolidated financial statements. Ernst & Young took exception to what they called “roving scienter.”
The court’s response:
“EY, despite serving continuously as Broadcom’s auditor from 1998 until 2008, during which it attested to the accuracy of Broadcom’s financial statements for the multiple years noted in the 2005 Opinion, cannot now disclaim those prior opinions simply because the same individuals were not involved.”
Audit reports in the United States are signed in the firm name, not individual partners as a sign of solidarity, unity, and global brand strength. It’s professionally embarrassing that Ernst & Young would use this defense to, in effect, “have their cake and eat it, too.”
ACCOUNTING WATCHDOG
April 26, 2011 - 12:36 p.m.
I’d rather see than be you, Ernst & Young.
As if the global audit firm didn’t have enough to worry about, now there’s a backdating case, arisen from the grave, threatening a jury trial.
That’s just unheard of.
From the Los Angeles Times on April 15, 2011:
Accounting firm Ernst & Young must face a class action suit over option backdating at Broadcom Corp., a federal appeals court has ruled, saying the auditors knew or should have known about the resulting misrepresentations in the Irvine tech company’s financial statements.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco reinstated Ernst & Young as a defendant in the investor lawsuit, overturning a 2009 decision by U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real…The auditors “apparently accepted management at its word, never received requested documentation and issued an unqualified opinion on the accuracy of Broadcom’s financial statements,” the panel said, adding that the accounting firm’s audit “amounted to no audit at all.”
There it is again. The deadly, “no audit at all” phrase.
Ernst & Young is already defending against it in the lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General for the Lehman failure. Ernst & Young recently petitioned to have that case moved to federal court and to a more friendly judge, Lewis Kaplan. The New York Attorney General filed their brief on March 18 but there’s no word yet on the court’s decision.
A move to federal court would make it easier for Ernst & Young to rid itself of the Martin Act - the broad, powerful anti-fraud statute the state is using to eliminate their need to prove scienter.
"Lyle Roberts in the 10b-5 Daily blog:
Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), plaintiffs must plead facts creating a strong inference that the defendants acted with scienter (i.e., fraudulent intent) to survive a motion to dismiss.
There’s a growing trend for plaintiffs’ lawyers to use the “no audit at all” approach to survive motions to dismiss in auditor liability cases. Deloitte will also face a jury – unless they settle first – in litigation related to their audit client Bear Stearns. By proving auditors were so reckless in their negligence that it amounted to “no audit at all”, there’s a lesser burden to prove fraudulent intent before proceeding to discovery and, possibly, a trial.
The SEC and PCAOB issued disciplinary orders against Price Waterhouse (PW) India for the Satyam fraud that did not rely on proving scienter. PW India had performed not only very poorly with regard to their audit client Satyam but, in general, throughout their Indian practice.
Section 10A(a) of the Exchange Act requires each audit to include procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance of detecting illegal acts that would have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. No showing of scienter is necessary to establish a violation of Section 10A.
The plaintiffs in the Broadcom case piled on the evidence in their appeal. They successfully convinced the appeals court of Ernst & Young’s possible complicity, at least as a result of their reckless negligence, in the backdating violations that led to significant restatements.
Ernst & Young is going to trial – unless they settle first.
From Lyle Roberts’ 10b-5 Daily blog:
The court found that each of the following three allegations, whether taken individually or viewed collectively, were sufficient to find a strong inference that E&Y had acted with scienter:
(1) E&Y knew the material consequences of a May 2000 backdated option grant that would have resulted in a $700 million charge to Broadcom’s financial results but, despite violations of GAAS, signed off on the grant without obtaining documentation;
(2) E&Y knew that several significant option grants in 2001 were approved on dates when Broadcom’s compensation committee was not legally constituted due to the death of one of the two committee members; and
(3) E&Y presided over corrective reforms in 2003 to prevent and detect any future instances of improper stock option awards without questioning the integrity of Broadcom’s accounting for options granted prior to the corrective reforms.
The court also examined several other factual allegations related to scienter, including allegations of insufficient documentation, weak internal controls, and red flags related to Broadcom’s stock option grants.
And how did Ernst & Young’s lawyers defend the firm? They questioned the contention that the same Ernst &Young partners who participated in Broadcom’s 2005 audit were aware of the earlier alleged backdating that impacted Broadcom’s 2005 consolidated financial statements. Ernst & Young took exception to what they called “roving scienter.”
The court’s response:
“EY, despite serving continuously as Broadcom’s auditor from 1998 until 2008, during which it attested to the accuracy of Broadcom’s financial statements for the multiple years noted in the 2005 Opinion, cannot now disclaim those prior opinions simply because the same individuals were not involved.”
Audit reports in the United States are signed in the firm name, not individual partners as a sign of solidarity, unity, and global brand strength. It’s professionally embarrassing that Ernst & Young would use this defense to, in effect, “have their cake and eat it, too.”
How Iran Became The World's Worst Internet Oppressor
Article by: Andy Greenberg April 26, 2011 - 10:27 a.m.
Reposted from THE FIREWALL
The Internet has fueled, and by some accounts may have even sparked, the wave of revolutions sweeping across the Middle East. So perhaps it’s little wonder that Iran, which has always kept a tight grip on its citizens’ access to the digital world, has stepped up its oppression to become the world’s number one enemy of Internet freedom.
In a report released last week from Freedom House, the civil liberties-focused non-profit analyzed the level of access to an unfettered Internet in 37 countries. Estonia was found to be the most liberal and connected, followed by the United States. Iran hit the bottom of the list, down significantly from the last time the report was compiled in 2009 and the country ranked above China, Tunisia, and Cuba.
What happened? According to the report’s analysis, Iran has cracked down on every front online. Since the Internet was used to organize protests after the disputed June 2009 re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country’s government enacted a Computer Crime Law the next month severely restricting acceptable content online and banning anything vaguely resembling political opposition, including women’s rights, homosexual rights, and content considered insulting to religious figures.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corporation (IRGC) bought a controlling stake in the Telecommunications Company of Iran in September of that year, and already exerted de facto control of the alternative IranCell through former IRGC officials.
That tightened control has also allowed high-level monitoring of content. Encrypted sites like Gmail are often banned to force users towards less-shielded alternatives that allow easier spying, and all data is stored by Internet service providers (ISPs) for six months before deletion so that it can be investigated.
To prevent users from circumventing surveillance, the regime has clamped down on the use of anonymity tools like Tor. In a blog post in January, Tor executive director Andrew Lewman wrote that one of the five Iranian ISPs is now blocking publicly-known Tor nodes, even when that connection is encrypted. “In a short few months, Iran has vastly improved the sophistication of their censorship technologies,” he wrote. The government was also recently found to be spoofing the SSL certificates on sites to trick users into thinking their connection is secure even when it isn’t.
A result of that crackdown is that more than 50 Iranian bloggers have been arrested. One, Omidreza Mirsayafi, died in prison under questionable circumstances. Hossein Derakshan, credited with founding Iran’s blogging movement, was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison last year.
The Iranian regime has long painted its internal dissent as external foreign meddling. Freedom House writes that the June 2009 protests were considered a “soft war” waged by foreign powers. So don’t be surprised if Iran’s brushes with real cyberwarfare, including the Stuxnet malware that’s thought to have targeted its uranium enrichment facilities, confirm its strange internal logic. Earlier this week, Iran declared that it had discovered a second cyberwarfare attack on its digital infrastructure known as the “Stars” virus. If the country’s ruling regime manages to conflate these purported outside Internet attacks with its citizens’ right to protest, expect Iran’s online crackdown to only intensify.
Reposted from THE FIREWALL
The Internet has fueled, and by some accounts may have even sparked, the wave of revolutions sweeping across the Middle East. So perhaps it’s little wonder that Iran, which has always kept a tight grip on its citizens’ access to the digital world, has stepped up its oppression to become the world’s number one enemy of Internet freedom.
In a report released last week from Freedom House, the civil liberties-focused non-profit analyzed the level of access to an unfettered Internet in 37 countries. Estonia was found to be the most liberal and connected, followed by the United States. Iran hit the bottom of the list, down significantly from the last time the report was compiled in 2009 and the country ranked above China, Tunisia, and Cuba.
What happened? According to the report’s analysis, Iran has cracked down on every front online. Since the Internet was used to organize protests after the disputed June 2009 re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country’s government enacted a Computer Crime Law the next month severely restricting acceptable content online and banning anything vaguely resembling political opposition, including women’s rights, homosexual rights, and content considered insulting to religious figures.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corporation (IRGC) bought a controlling stake in the Telecommunications Company of Iran in September of that year, and already exerted de facto control of the alternative IranCell through former IRGC officials.
That tightened control has also allowed high-level monitoring of content. Encrypted sites like Gmail are often banned to force users towards less-shielded alternatives that allow easier spying, and all data is stored by Internet service providers (ISPs) for six months before deletion so that it can be investigated.
To prevent users from circumventing surveillance, the regime has clamped down on the use of anonymity tools like Tor. In a blog post in January, Tor executive director Andrew Lewman wrote that one of the five Iranian ISPs is now blocking publicly-known Tor nodes, even when that connection is encrypted. “In a short few months, Iran has vastly improved the sophistication of their censorship technologies,” he wrote. The government was also recently found to be spoofing the SSL certificates on sites to trick users into thinking their connection is secure even when it isn’t.
A result of that crackdown is that more than 50 Iranian bloggers have been arrested. One, Omidreza Mirsayafi, died in prison under questionable circumstances. Hossein Derakshan, credited with founding Iran’s blogging movement, was sentenced to nearly 20 years in prison last year.
The Iranian regime has long painted its internal dissent as external foreign meddling. Freedom House writes that the June 2009 protests were considered a “soft war” waged by foreign powers. So don’t be surprised if Iran’s brushes with real cyberwarfare, including the Stuxnet malware that’s thought to have targeted its uranium enrichment facilities, confirm its strange internal logic. Earlier this week, Iran declared that it had discovered a second cyberwarfare attack on its digital infrastructure known as the “Stars” virus. If the country’s ruling regime manages to conflate these purported outside Internet attacks with its citizens’ right to protest, expect Iran’s online crackdown to only intensify.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)