USApedia

Deloitte: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Deloitte (view source)

Revision as of 23:13, 14 March 2025

20 bytes removed ,  14 March
m
Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian"
VisualWikitext
m (Text replacement - "The Wall Street Journal" to "The Wall Street Journal")
m (Text replacement - "The Guardian" to "The Guardian")
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 41: Line 41:
In 1845, [[William Welch Deloitte]] opened an office in London, England. Deloitte was the first person to be appointed an independent auditor of a public company, namely the [[Great Western Railway]].<ref name="history">{{cite web| url=https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/about-deloitte.html| title=About Deloitte| work=Deloitte| access-date=2 October 2014}}</ref> He went on to open an office in New York in 1880.<ref name="history" />
In 1845, [[William Welch Deloitte]] opened an office in London, England. Deloitte was the first person to be appointed an independent auditor of a public company, namely the [[Great Western Railway]].<ref name="history">{{cite web| url=https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/about-deloitte.html| title=About Deloitte| work=Deloitte| access-date=2 October 2014}}</ref> He went on to open an office in New York in 1880.<ref name="history" />


In 1890, Deloitte opened a branch office on [[Wall Street]] headed by Edward Adams and P.D. Griffiths as branch managers. This was Deloitte's first overseas venture. Other branches were soon opened in [[Chicago]] and [[Buenos Aires]]. In 1898 P.D. Griffiths returned from New York and became a partner in the London office.<ref name="Book1">{{cite book|title=Deloitte & Co.|date=1959|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>
In 1890, Deloitte opened a branch office on [[Wall Street]] headed by Edward Adams and P.D. Griffiths as branch managers. This was Deloitte's first overseas venture. Other branches were soon opened in Chicago and [[Buenos Aires]]. In 1898 P.D. Griffiths returned from New York and became a partner in the London office.<ref name="Book1">{{cite book|title=Deloitte & Co.|date=1959|publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>


In 1896, [[Charles Waldo Haskins]] and [[Elijah Watt Sells]] formed Haskins & Sells in New York.<ref name="history" /> It was later described as "the first major auditing firm to be established in the country by American rather than British accountants".<ref>[http://fisher.osu.edu/departments/accounting-and-mis/the-accounting-hall-of-fame/membership-in-hall/elijah-watt-sells Elijah Watt Sells] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160704125102/http://fisher.osu.edu/departments/accounting-and-mis/the-accounting-hall-of-fame/membership-in-hall/elijah-watt-sells |date=4 July 2016 }}, "The Accounting Hall of Fame", [[Fisher College of Business]]. Retrieved 7 August 2013.</ref>
In 1896, [[Charles Waldo Haskins]] and [[Elijah Watt Sells]] formed Haskins & Sells in New York.<ref name="history" /> It was later described as "the first major auditing firm to be established in the country by American rather than British accountants".<ref>[http://fisher.osu.edu/departments/accounting-and-mis/the-accounting-hall-of-fame/membership-in-hall/elijah-watt-sells Elijah Watt Sells] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160704125102/http://fisher.osu.edu/departments/accounting-and-mis/the-accounting-hall-of-fame/membership-in-hall/elijah-watt-sells |date=4 July 2016 }}, "The Accounting Hall of Fame", [[Fisher College of Business]]. Retrieved 7 August 2013.</ref>
Line 190: Line 190:


=== China Huarong Asset Management Co. ===
=== China Huarong Asset Management Co. ===
In March 2023, [[China]]'s Ministry of Finance fined Deloitte 211.9 million yuan ($30.8 million) for illegal auditing deficiencies in the audit of [[China CITIC Financial Asset Management|China Huarong Asset Management Co.]] The Ministry found that Deloitte had failed to maintain professional skepticism during the audit. Huarong was fined 800,000 yuan ($116,227) for its role in the auditing deficiencies.<ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Edward |last2=Yu |first2=Sun |last3=Ho-him |first3=Chan |title=China suspends Deloitte’s Beijing office over Huarong audit ‘deficiencies’ |url=https://www.ft.com/content/9c28943f-e7ae-4b28-9e0c-3c654c2f097a |website=www.ft.com |access-date=16 June 2024 |date=17 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=China fines Deloitte $31 million for auditing negligence |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/china-fines-deloitte-31-mln-auditing-negligence-2023-03-18/ |website=Reuters |access-date=16 June 2024 |date=18 March 2023}}</ref>
In March 2023, China's Ministry of Finance fined Deloitte 211.9 million yuan ($30.8 million) for illegal auditing deficiencies in the audit of [[China CITIC Financial Asset Management|China Huarong Asset Management Co.]] The Ministry found that Deloitte had failed to maintain professional skepticism during the audit. Huarong was fined 800,000 yuan ($116,227) for its role in the auditing deficiencies.<ref>{{cite web |last1=White |first1=Edward |last2=Yu |first2=Sun |last3=Ho-him |first3=Chan |title=China suspends Deloitte’s Beijing office over Huarong audit ‘deficiencies’ |url=https://www.ft.com/content/9c28943f-e7ae-4b28-9e0c-3c654c2f097a |website=www.ft.com |access-date=16 June 2024 |date=17 March 2023}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=China fines Deloitte $31 million for auditing negligence |url=https://www.reuters.com/business/china-fines-deloitte-31-mln-auditing-negligence-2023-03-18/ |website=Reuters |access-date=16 June 2024 |date=18 March 2023}}</ref>


=== Johnston Press audit ===
=== Johnston Press audit ===
Line 196: Line 196:


===Livent===
===Livent===
In proceedings arising from the insolvency of the former entertainment company [[Livent]], in April 2014 its special receiver obtained judgment against Deloitte for $84,750,000 in the [[Ontario Superior Court of Justice]], in relation to Deloitte's failure to exercise its [[duty of care]] with respect to the audit of Livent's financial statements during 1993{{endash}}1998.<ref>{{cite news|author = Drew Hasselback|title = Livent auditor Deloitte ordered to pay $84.8-million for failing detect fraud|url = http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/06/livent-auditor-deloitte-ordered-to-pay-84-8-million-for-failing-detect-fraud/|newspaper = [[Financial Post]]|date = 6 April 2014}}, discussing {{cite CanLII|litigants=Livent Inc v Deloitte & Touche LLP|link=|year=2014|court=onsc|num=2176|pinpoint=|parallelcite=|date=4 April 2014|courtname=|juris=}}</ref> The ruling was upheld by the [[Ontario Court of Appeal]] in January 2016,<ref>{{cite news |last=Perkel |first= Colin |date=8 January 2016 |title=Court upholds $118-million award against negligent Livent auditor Deloitte |url=http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/court-upholds-118-million-award-against-negligent-livent-auditor-deloitte |newspaper=Financial Post}}, discussing {{cite CanLII| litigants=Livent Inc v Deloitte & Touche| link=| year=2016| court=onca| num=11| date=8 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thecourt.ca/2016/01/19/livent-v-deloitte-has-the-fat-lady-finally-sung/ |title=''Livent v Deloitte'': Has The Fat Lady Finally Sung? |last1=Joseph |first1=Patricia |date=19 January 2016 |website=thecourt.ca |publisher=[[Osgoode Hall Law School]] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160125185555/http://www.thecourt.ca/2016/01/19/livent-v-deloitte-has-the-fat-lady-finally-sung/ |archive-date=25 January 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Buckstein |first=Jeff |date=March 2016 |title=Livent ruling seen as game changer for auditing duties |url=http://thebottomlinenews.ca/articles/820 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306134737/http://thebottomlinenews.ca/articles/820 |archive-date=6 March 2016 |newspaper=The Bottom Line}}</ref> but in December 2017, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in ''[[Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)]]'' allowed an appeal in part, declaring that liability existed only in respect of Deloitte's negligence in conducting the audit for Livent's 1997 [[fiscal year]], and accordingly reduced the amount of damages awarded to $40,425,000.<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)|link=Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)|year=2017|court=scc|num=63|parallelcite=|date=20 December 2017}}</ref>
In proceedings arising from the insolvency of the former entertainment company [[Livent]], in April 2014 its special receiver obtained judgment against Deloitte for $84,750,000 in the [[Ontario Superior Court of Justice]], in relation to Deloitte's failure to exercise its [[duty of care]] with respect to the audit of Livent's financial statements during 1993{{endash}}1998.<ref>{{cite news|author = Drew Hasselback|title = Livent auditor Deloitte ordered to pay $84.8-million for failing detect fraud|url = http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/06/livent-auditor-deloitte-ordered-to-pay-84-8-million-for-failing-detect-fraud/|newspaper = [[Financial Post]]|date = 6 April 2014}}, discussing {{cite CanLII|litigants=Livent Inc v Deloitte & Touche LLP|link=|year=2014|court=onsc|num=2176|pinpoint=|parallelcite=|date=4 April 2014|courtname=|juris=}}</ref> The ruling was upheld by the [[Ontario Court of Appeal]] in January 2016,<ref>{{cite news |last=Perkel |first= Colin |date=8 January 2016 |title=Court upholds $118-million award against negligent Livent auditor Deloitte |url=http://business.financialpost.com/legal-post/court-upholds-118-million-award-against-negligent-livent-auditor-deloitte |newspaper=Financial Post}}, discussing {{cite CanLII| litigants=Livent Inc v Deloitte & Touche| link=| year=2016| court=onca| num=11| date=8 January 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thecourt.ca/2016/01/19/livent-v-deloitte-has-the-fat-lady-finally-sung/ |title=''Livent v Deloitte'': Has The Fat Lady Finally Sung? |last1=Joseph |first1=Patricia |date=19 January 2016 |website=thecourt.ca |publisher=[[Osgoode Hall Law School]] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160125185555/http://www.thecourt.ca/2016/01/19/livent-v-deloitte-has-the-fat-lady-finally-sung/ |archive-date=25 January 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Buckstein |first=Jeff |date=March 2016 |title=Livent ruling seen as game changer for auditing duties |url=http://thebottomlinenews.ca/articles/820 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306134737/http://thebottomlinenews.ca/articles/820 |archive-date=6 March 2016 |newspaper=The Bottom Line}}</ref> but in December 2017, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] in ''[[Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)]]'' allowed an appeal in part, declaring that liability existed only in respect of Deloitte's negligence in conducting the audit for Livent's 1997 fiscal year, and accordingly reduced the amount of damages awarded to $40,425,000.<ref>{{cite CanLII|litigants=Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)|link=Deloitte & Touche v Livent Inc (Receiver of)|year=2017|court=scc|num=63|parallelcite=|date=20 December 2017}}</ref>


=== Mitie plc ===
=== Mitie plc ===
Line 265: Line 265:


===E-mail hack===
===E-mail hack===
In September 2017, ''[[The Guardian]]'' reported that Deloitte suffered a cyberattack that breached the confidentiality of its clients and 244,000 staff, allowing the attackers to access "usernames, passwords, IP addresses, architectural diagrams for businesses and health information". Reportedly, Deloitte had stored the affected data in Microsoft's [[Microsoft Azure|Azure]] cloud hosting service, without [[two-step verification]]. The attackers were thought to possibly have had access from as early as October 2016.<ref name="guardsep2017">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/25/deloitte-hit-by-cyber-attack-revealing-clients-secret-emails|title=Deloitte hit by cyber-attack revealing clients' secret emails|first=Nick|last=Hopkins|date=25 September 2017|access-date=10 October 2017|website=The Guardian}}</ref> [[Brian Krebs]] reported that the breach affected all of Deloitte's email and [[Superuser|administrative user]] accounts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/09/source-deloitte-breach-affected-all-company-email-admin-accounts/|title=Source: Deloitte Breach Affected All Company Email, Admin Accounts – Krebs on Security|website=krebsonsecurity.com|access-date=10 October 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/story/security-news-of-the-week-deloitte-sonic-whole-foods-breach/|title=Security News This Week: The Deloitte Breach Was Worse Than We Thought|magazine=Wired|access-date=9 November 2017}}</ref> A later report by ''The Wall Street Journal'' repeated Deloitte's statement that only a few clients were affected. Deloitte said that neither its services nor its clients' businesses were disrupted. Deloitte reportedly first noticed suspicious activity in April 2017. Deloitte said that no sensitive information was compromised and that its investigators were eventually able to read every email obtained by the hackers.<ref name="WallCyber">{{cite news|last1=Rapoport|first1=Michael|title=New York Investigates Deloitte Cyberbreach|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=13 October 2017}}</ref>
In September 2017, ''The Guardian'' reported that Deloitte suffered a cyberattack that breached the confidentiality of its clients and 244,000 staff, allowing the attackers to access "usernames, passwords, IP addresses, architectural diagrams for businesses and health information". Reportedly, Deloitte had stored the affected data in Microsoft's [[Microsoft Azure|Azure]] cloud hosting service, without [[two-step verification]]. The attackers were thought to possibly have had access from as early as October 2016.<ref name="guardsep2017">{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/25/deloitte-hit-by-cyber-attack-revealing-clients-secret-emails|title=Deloitte hit by cyber-attack revealing clients' secret emails|first=Nick|last=Hopkins|date=25 September 2017|access-date=10 October 2017|website=The Guardian}}</ref> [[Brian Krebs]] reported that the breach affected all of Deloitte's email and [[Superuser|administrative user]] accounts.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/09/source-deloitte-breach-affected-all-company-email-admin-accounts/|title=Source: Deloitte Breach Affected All Company Email, Admin Accounts – Krebs on Security|website=krebsonsecurity.com|access-date=10 October 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/story/security-news-of-the-week-deloitte-sonic-whole-foods-breach/|title=Security News This Week: The Deloitte Breach Was Worse Than We Thought|magazine=Wired|access-date=9 November 2017}}</ref> A later report by ''The Wall Street Journal'' repeated Deloitte's statement that only a few clients were affected. Deloitte said that neither its services nor its clients' businesses were disrupted. Deloitte reportedly first noticed suspicious activity in April 2017. Deloitte said that no sensitive information was compromised and that its investigators were eventually able to read every email obtained by the hackers.<ref name="WallCyber">{{cite news|last1=Rapoport|first1=Michael|title=New York Investigates Deloitte Cyberbreach|newspaper=The Wall Street Journal|date=13 October 2017}}</ref>


In October 2017, ''The Guardian'' reported that client accounts compromised in the breach included, but were not limited to, the [[US Department of Defense]], the [[US Department of Homeland Security]], the [[US State Department]], the [[US Department of Energy]], mortgage companies [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]], the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH), and the [[US Postal Service]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deloitte-hack-hit-server-containing-emails-from-across-us-government|title=Deloitte hack hit server containing emails from across US government|first=Nick|last=Hopkins|date=10 October 2017|access-date=10 October 2017|website=The Guardian}}</ref> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued statements saying they were not affected by the attack and denied that any of their data was compromised.<ref name="BankerCyber">{{cite news|last1=Berry|first1=Kate|title=Fannie, Freddie not affected by Deloitte breach, GSEs say|url=https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fannie-freddie-not-impacted-by-deloitte-breach-gses-say|access-date=6 December 2017|publisher=American Banker|date=10 October 2017}}</ref>
In October 2017, ''The Guardian'' reported that client accounts compromised in the breach included, but were not limited to, the [[US Department of Defense]], the [[US Department of Homeland Security]], the [[US State Department]], the [[US Department of Energy]], mortgage companies [[Fannie Mae]] and [[Freddie Mac]], the [[National Institutes of Health]] (NIH), and the [[US Postal Service]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/10/deloitte-hack-hit-server-containing-emails-from-across-us-government|title=Deloitte hack hit server containing emails from across US government|first=Nick|last=Hopkins|date=10 October 2017|access-date=10 October 2017|website=The Guardian}}</ref> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued statements saying they were not affected by the attack and denied that any of their data was compromised.<ref name="BankerCyber">{{cite news|last1=Berry|first1=Kate|title=Fannie, Freddie not affected by Deloitte breach, GSEs say|url=https://www.americanbanker.com/news/fannie-freddie-not-impacted-by-deloitte-breach-gses-say|access-date=6 December 2017|publisher=American Banker|date=10 October 2017}}</ref>
Line 272: Line 272:


===Carillion===
===Carillion===
Deloitte had acted as internal auditor at construction and services giant [[Carillion]] before it went into liquidation in January 2018. The "excoriating" and "damning" (''[[The Guardian]]'')<ref name="Davies-16May2018">{{cite news|last1=Davies|first1=Rob|title='Recklessness, hubris and greed' – Carillion slammed by MPs|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/16/recklessness-hubris-and-greed-carillion-slammed-by-mps|access-date=16 May 2018|work=The Guardian|date=16 May 2018}}</ref> final report of the Parliamentary inquiry into Carillion's collapse was published on 16 May 2018, and criticised Deloitte for its involvement in the company's financial reporting practices:
Deloitte had acted as internal auditor at construction and services giant [[Carillion]] before it went into liquidation in January 2018. The "excoriating" and "damning" (''The Guardian'')<ref name="Davies-16May2018">{{cite news|last1=Davies|first1=Rob|title='Recklessness, hubris and greed' – Carillion slammed by MPs|url=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/16/recklessness-hubris-and-greed-carillion-slammed-by-mps|access-date=16 May 2018|work=The Guardian|date=16 May 2018}}</ref> final report of the Parliamentary inquiry into Carillion's collapse was published on 16 May 2018, and criticised Deloitte for its involvement in the company's financial reporting practices:
{{blockquote|Deloitte were responsible for advising Carillion’s board on risk management and financial controls, failings in the business that proved terminal. Deloitte were either unable to identify effectively to the board the risks associated with their business practices, unwilling to do so, or too readily ignored them.<ref name="Carillion report conclusion">{{cite book|title=Carillion: Second Joint report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees of Session 2017–19|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/769/769.pdf|date=2018|publisher=House of Commons|location=London|page=91|access-date=16 May 2018}}</ref>}}
{{blockquote|Deloitte were responsible for advising Carillion’s board on risk management and financial controls, failings in the business that proved terminal. Deloitte were either unable to identify effectively to the board the risks associated with their business practices, unwilling to do so, or too readily ignored them.<ref name="Carillion report conclusion">{{cite book|title=Carillion: Second Joint report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Work and Pensions Committees of Session 2017–19|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmworpen/769/769.pdf|date=2018|publisher=House of Commons|location=London|page=91|access-date=16 May 2018}}</ref>}}


Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/17560...31777’