- CA executives involved in the accounting scandal were not accused of reporting bogus contracts or hiding major problems in the business. The contracts that were backdated were real sales agreements. Was this really a crime? Should the individuals have been punished so harshly?
Answer:
Yes, backdating is a crime it is a form of lie for hiding the truth or reality of the situation maybe the CA executives who are involved in doing this things did it with a good purpose but hiding the reality or the truth is still unethical in a business it’s a cheat to someone or the investors which is not a good practice. There punishment for me maybe enough to paid the damage they’ve done.
- In December 2004, CA appointed Patrick J. Gnazzo as senior chief compliance officer to demonstrate to the government and shareholders that the firm would take measures to operate ethically. Gnazzo served in this role at United Technologies for 10 years and had been a member of the board of directors of the Ethics Officers Association. Gnazzo reported to a new executive vice president and general counsel at CA as well as the board’s Compliance Committee. Outline some of the actions Gnazzo might have taken in his first six months on the job.
Answer:
The experience of Gnazzo will be enough to take hold the position and to prove that CA will still have a chance to operate ethically, however we should consider the working background of Gnazzo before letting him in not because we doubted him but just to make sure that Gnazzo will perform his duty ethically in line with ethical standards of the company.
- John Swainson, a 26-year veteran of IBM, joined CA in November 2004 as CEO and president. His first few months with the firm were rough—major customers threatened to dump the firm; some products were behind schedule and were of poor quality; executives had to be fired for breaking company rules; accountants continued to find past mistakes; and many newly hired executives had to be brought on board. What sort of leadership could he have demonstrated to show that he was determined to avoid future scandals at CA?
Answer:
John Swainson might just have responded to what must to be done as an executive and a chairman of the CA. He just showed a leadership that is responsible to demonstrate to everyone that they must perform their tasks responsibly. He is trying to do anything he could that will help to avoid future company scandals like the case mention above.
- CA has been hit with numerous scandals since the late 1990s. These scandals raise questions about how successful the firm might have been if not for the amount of time its executives had to spend on these distractions. Compare the revenue growth and stock price of CA to that of some of its competitors over the time period 2004–2008. (Be sure to use CA’s corrected figures!) Can you detect any impact of these scandals on CA’s performance? What else might explain the difference in performance?
Answer:
CA’s performance is on the top compare to others investors knowing that they had total revenue of $ 4.3 billion in the year 2008. This scandal affect greatly on the performance of CA. Cases and failures appear side by side and an executive becomes focus on fixing this problem. A lot of money is spent and less revenue comes in on the next succeeding year however this doesn’t stops CA to continue to operate and becomes one of the leading companies today.
The Prince's Blog 