« Insider Trading: Tokyo Drift | Main | 'Bout Time! »

Daily Posts

May 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

About SLW

Events

Subscribe

Email Alerts

Subscribe and receive email alerts when new articles are published!

Enter Your Email Address

U.S. Code

Code of Federal Regulations

Friday, July 28, 2006

WorldCom Update: SEC Sues Former WorldCom Accountant

Just when you thought that the WorldCom case was dead and buried, it appears that the SEC is still plugging along.  Despite the fact that all of the key players in the fraud have now been prosecuted and sentenced (some, such as Betty Vinson, have actually already pleaded guilty, served their entire sentence and been released!) the SEC announced a new civil case against Mark Abide, the company's former director of property accounting. 

The SEC announced that

The Commission's action against Abide is its seventh civil action related to the WorldCom fraud. The complaint filed today alleges from the first quarter of 2001 through the first quarter of 2002, Abide made, and directed others to make, improper accounting entries into WorldCom's depreciable asset accounts in order to conceal improperly capitalized expenses. In January and February 2002, while the fraud was being carried out by Abide and others, Abide sold 6,728 shares of WorldCom stock (99% of the WorldCom stock he owned), avoiding losses of nearly $58,000.

Abide has agreed to settle the matter by consenting to pay $128,806:  $57,947 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest of $12,912 and an insider trading civil money penalty of $57,947.  Abide also has agreed to be suspended from practicing before the Commission as an accountant with the right to request his reinstatement after five years.

Oddly enough, Abide appears to be the only one of the seven SEC defendants to date (Ebbers, Sullivan, David Myers, Buddy Yates, Vinson, and Troy Normand) who will actually pay a fine to the SEC.  The SEC said yesterday that Sullivan and Yates are "unable to pay" the fines/disgorgement previously imposed upon them (Sullivan already forked over his sweet house in Boca Raton as part of the securities class action settlement), and that no such penalties were imposed on Vinson and Normand because they also were unable to pay anything.  The SEC had previously indicated that the same was true of Myers.  Ebbers' SEC settlement did not include any fines/disgorgement.

Wait a minute--The last we read, Vinson was gainfully employed as a controller at a KFC.  I guess the SEC can't work out some kind of payment plan?

Comments

The SEC did not impose penalties on Vinson and Normand because neither received any ill-gotten gain from their participation in the fraud, not because they couldn't pay.

I disagree--the SEC did not seek DISGORGEMENT from Vinson and Normand because neither received any ill-gotten gain from their participation in the fraud. However, according to the SEC litigation release, the reasoning for not imposing civil penalties (i.e., fines) was because of "their demonstrated inability to pay."

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.riskmetrics.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/749

   
 
About RiskMetrics Group | Disclaimer

Copyright © 2007 RiskMetrics Group
The World Leader in Proxy Voting and Corporate Governance Services

Powered by Movable Type 3.36