|
|
| Pachulski Stang's 8th Bankruptcy Bill - "401(k) audit"? - Updated |
 |
|
Saturday, June 14 2008 @ 11:25 PM EDT
|
Let's not forget Pachulski Stang. They have an 8th bill filed now, their bill for April, and they'd like their money too. This bill is for $12,000.50 and expenses in the amount of $1,366.60 for expenses. The balance brought forward is $30,995.13, with a "total balance now due" in the amount of $44,362.23. $2,183 is for preparing bills to submit for SCO to pay. Now, that's a great gig. You charge for billing. It isn't just this firm, of course. Bankruptcy court lets you do that. It just always makes me smile, that when you are bankrupt, a law firm can bill you for billing you. I notice the bill misspells Ryan Tibbitts' first name, but they'd have to charge to fix it, I guess, so let's not tell them. This firm seems to be the one that coordinates some things for all the firms. I can't help but notice that they charged only $233.50 for work on a reorganization plan and disclosure statement in April. When you consider April and what some of the other firms charged, that's almost nothing. In contrast they charged $574 for work on "the Tanner retention matter". What is that?
On page 7 of Exhibit A, an entry reads:
Review, edit and prepare to file motion to expand Tanner's retention regarding 401(k) audit
But didn't Tanner tell the court in January their new role was doing taxes?
Update:
[I completely forgot about Tanner's April motion [PDF] where indeed it asked to have its role expanded again, for an additional $17,000, to audit the 401(k). Here's the letter of engagement [PDF], which is more than fascinating. Tanner outlines how it will be looking for fraud, among other things. I expect that is a normal disclaimer, given what we know about 401(k) audits post-Enron. But do read the letter, as the tone is striking. The retirement plan is with New York Life Trust, according to the letter of engagement, on page 3 of the PDF: "... and as instructed by you, we will not perform any auditing procedures with respect to information prepared and certified to by New York Life Trust Company, the trustee, in accordance with DOL Regulation 2520.103-5...Because of the significance of the information that we will not audit, we will not express an opinion on the financial statements and schedules taken as a whole." This was one of the motions that was to be heard at the June 17 hearing, according to the Pacer entry as well as the motion itself. But the judge already signed the Order [PDF] on June 8. The deadline for objections was May 8, so I guess when there weren't any, he just went ahead and signed it. Since the deadline to file is July 31, I guess that would be the reason for hurrying. End update.] Here's what Tanner's motion said back then:
6. Since Tanner's retention, the Debtors have decided to expand the scope of the retention to include the preparation of the Debtors' consolidated federal and state income tax returns for their fiscal year ended October 31, 2007.
They figured they'd need about $36,000-38,000 to do just that task. Now there's an audit too? By whom? I can't match this up, although there may be a simple explanation. Well, Tanner can always keep expanding their role. I believe, though, that the Engagement Letter said if more tasks came up, they'd be a subject for another Engagement Letter, and presumably it would require the court's approval, so that may be what this item was foreshadowing. Yay! More work! Mo' money! Just kidding around. If you look on the most recent Tanner bill, which runs through the end of May, you don't see any 401(k) audit category. Ditto for April's [PDF]. I see an Audit, SEC category, but unless that's it, I'm wondering if there will be a motion later from Tanner. Here's why this year some companies are doing 401(k) audits more carefully, from a press release titled, "As 401k Audit Season Starts, Sponsors Face Tougher Standards": July is vacation time for many executives, but a busy time for 401k plan sponsors, who face a July 31st deadline for submitting an audited 401k plan financial statement with their Form 5500 to the federal government. This year, they’ll be busier than ever. Auditors will be asking more questions and requesting more documentation because new, stricter audit standards, known as the “risk assessment standards,” now are effective for employee benefit plan audits for periods beginning on or after Dec. 15, 2006. This year, auditors are required to look at the plan sponsor as well as the plan, and the audit process will last longer and demand more management time.
Previously, auditors focused primarily on the books of the 401k plan, examining whether plan transactions and the balance sheet were sound. But now, the auditors are required to look beyond the books and judge whether management would be likely to make a material misstatement on its financial documents. “Basically, we are searching for clues that internal controls are weak or that management is operating in a difficult business environment,” explains Joseph Musher, CPA, a senior partner at Buchbinder Tunick & Co., which devotes more than half of its practice to employee benefit plans. “It’s a lesson from Enron: the books were balanced, but if you had looked at the company itself, you would have seen the risk and planned the audit accordingly.” I hope someone is looking at the company itself. I'd surely love to see the spin on the 401(k) audit on SCO's prospects as a company and "whether management would be likely to make a material misstatement on its financial documents." Anyway, July 31 is the deadline in 401(k) audit-land. See how much we can learn from SCO?
Here's an interesting title: "Employers May Now be at Risk of Being Sued Over 401(k) Costs": According to a recent Supreme Court
ruling, employers may now be at risk of being sued by individual 401(k)
participants. Justice John Paul Stevens ruled that ERISA "authorize[s]
recovery for fiduciary breaches that impair the value of plan assets in a
participant's individual account."
Since excessive 401(k) fees can certainly decrease the value of a participant's
plan assets, this ruling may put many employers at risk of potential lawsuits.
"Part of an employer's responsibility as a plan trustee is to know the
total cost of the company's 401k program and whether or not such cost is
reasonable under ERISA," states David B. Loeper, CEO of Financeware, Inc.
and author of Stop the 401(k) Rip-off! "Plan trustees are at risk if they
cannot document that they have evaluated the total costs participants bear and
they have not sought competitive pricing to compare those costs to determine if
they are reasonable. Prudent trustees would be wise to do this annually.
Here are the filings: 06/13/2008 - 499 - Monthly Application for Compensation (Eighth) and Reimbursement of Expenses, as Co-Counsel to the Debtors and Debtors in Possession, for the Period from April 1, 2008 through April 30, 2008 Filed by Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP. Objections due by 7/3/2008. (Attachments: # 1 Notice # 2 Exhibit A # 3 Certificate of Service and Service List) (O'Neill, James) (Entered: 06/13/2008) You'll note an entry repeated several times in the list of tasks done for SCO in April, on Exhibit A, "Research and update critical dates memorandum with respect to recently filed pleadings." That's talking about something I explained to you once before: that lawyers keep careful track of critical dates when filings are due, for example. Remember I mentioned that they rarely, very rarely, miss, and this is how they keep track. Some firms will have more than one person keeping track, usually a paralegal. Here, it's MLO, which seems to be one of their paralegals, Margaret L. Oberholzer.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 14 2008 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
To make easy to find them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 14 2008 @ 11:41 PM EDT |
You know the drill.
Please obey the Important stuff below the comment box and make clickies if you
know how to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Groklaw presence in SecondlLife?? - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 12:31 AM EDT
- Could BILL C-61 be a Section 12 Charter Violation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 09:53 AM EDT
- Narnia Internet dispute - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- Where is Judge Kimball's ruling? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Spying on you from upstream - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Many eyes - Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 05:59 PM EDT
- RIAA news - 2 days old - Authored by: bbaston on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 06:14 PM EDT
- RIAA news - 2 days old - Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 08:13 PM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 01:17 AM EDT
- Depending on the artist ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 10:44 AM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:39 AM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 02:14 PM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:16 PM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 06:26 PM EDT
- Ouch! - Authored by: DarkPhoenix on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:43 PM EDT
- RIAA refiling the same lawsuit - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 08:44 PM EDT
- Start Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 08:49 PM EDT
- Behavioural targeting (Phorm) - Authored by: baomike on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 12:53 AM EDT
- We've fallen into a trap and can't get out, help! - DRM - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 09:58 AM EDT
- Office 2007 drove my Dad to use Open Office - Authored by: chriseyre2000 on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- UK hacker's case before Law Lords - Authored by: tiger99 on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 04:40 PM EDT
- does anyone know .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Are there any updates to the OOXML investigations ? - Authored by: grokker59 on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 11:21 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Saturday, June 14 2008 @ 11:44 PM EDT |
Please put the title of the news pick in you post title so we know what you
refer to.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, June 14 2008 @ 11:58 PM EDT |
| For Groklaw's benefit - whether participating over at OASIS or just passing by -
here's the place to post.
PJ reminds those of us monitoring the discussion
to
"Stay polite at all times, of course, if you say
anything, and you needn't say anything, but do follow along and please keep us
posted on anything you see that sounds
peculiar."
OASIS discussion list for ODF
Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance
Some relevent
information includes formation of this discussion and archive of
all discussion emails (pick date or thread - direct access doesn't seem to
work).
A work-in-progress of the result so far - the draft charter
is hosted at: http://sites.google.com/a/od
fiic.org/tc/Home ---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: thorpie on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 06:32 AM EDT |
What is the order of precedence for distributing the remaining assets of SCO?
If Novell get awarded their $20 mil it means that the money was never SCO's so
they have precedence over unsecured pre Chapter 12 debtors.
But what about these debtors who have extended credit by providing services
since Chapter 12 was entered? If the money is not SCO's in the first place do
Novell get first pick?
---
The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime -
Floyd, Pink[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 08:15 AM EDT |
$2,183 is for preparing bills to submit for SCO to pay.
Now,
that's a great gig. You charge for billing. It isn't
just this firm, of course.
Bankruptcy court lets you do
that. It just always makes me smile, that when you
are
bankrupt, a law firm can bill you for billing you.
It sort of
makes sense in a weird way. I don't think that, strictly speaking, they're
billing for billng SCO. Instead they are billing for preparing the bills for
submission to the court. Since lawyers and accountants are normally paid for
preparing documents for submission to courts...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
..
...we will not express an opinion on the financial statements and schedules
taken as a whole."
Do we smell smoke? This is curious. If an accountant says this, isn't the
audit worthless. Why don't they want them to audit here?
--Is it a routine, safe area;
--Is the New York Life Trust responsible for this or do they just blindly do
what they are told;
--Are they just cutting corners to save for creditors; ;)
--Is this retirement plan a bit lavish for a bankrupt company; with suspicious
timing and post-datings;
--Given the litigious nature of the world, SCO's financial performance, and the
generous funding, yet limited employee scope of this plan, can it escape
scrutiny, squabbling and bankruptcy court supervision;
--Who will pay the legal and accounting fees in 5 weeks; Will they consume the
401(k) fighting over it?
Unceasing fascination as the SCO World Turns. Someone should produce a
re-enactment with buxom receptionists.
~webster~
_______________________[flames unnecessary - father's day]
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 15 2008 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
In reading the Letter of Engagement from Tanner, I don't see anything unusual.
I am the IT Director for a CPA firm and pretty much know what is standard. In
this case Tanner is relying on information that has been certified by the
trustee, New York Life Trust. Since they are not auditing that portion, they
cannot attest to the complete accuracy of the statements in total, only to what
they themselves audit.
If memory serves, Delloite Touche got burned by certifying financials as
accurate, when in fact they were relying on Arthur Andersen's certification of
the financials of a subsidiary that turned out not to be truthful. Since then
every CPA firm puts this type of disclaimer into their engagement letters when
not auditing every piece of information. Standard CYA language. Basically its
saying "We will guarantee what we do is accurate, but can't speak for
anyone else."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 16 2008 @ 08:48 PM EDT |
This brings up a question pertinent to me:
Someone I know is receiving "matching" funds for their investment ...
"paid" for with the company's stock ... which, in turn, has gone down
-- a lot -- in value. I wonder if there are grounds for suit here?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
