Who Audits Southwest Airlines?

The Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Southwest Airlines Co. shall consist of at least three directors, each of whom shall meet the independence and experience requirements of the New York Stock Exchange and Rule 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Who is the auditor for Southwest Airlines?

DALLAS – Southwest Airlines Co. (NYSE: LUV) today announced two Leadership promotions within its Internal Audit and Legal Departments, both effective immediately. Internal Audit Ted Gordon was promoted to Vice President Internal Audit where he will be responsible for leading Internal Audit functions.

Gordon will provide strategic and tactical leadership of audit plan development; delivering assurance on the design and operating effectiveness of the Company’s governance, accounting, financial, operational, and IT controls.

Gordon was most recently a Director within the airline’s Network Planning Team and has held leadership positions within the Finance and Internal Audit departments.

Gordon joined Southwest Airlines® in 2005. He is a Certified Public Accountant and holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in accounting from the University of Missouri. “Throughout his career, Ted has displayed a knack for streamlining processes, finding efficiencies, and developing practical solutions to support Southwest’s continued growth,” said Linda Rutherford, Southwest Airlines’ Chief Administration and Communications Officer.

“We are immensely proud of Ted’s accomplishments and are thrilled to promote him into his new role.” Gordon moves into the position held previously by Colleen Russell who stepped down from her office role this month. She will continue to serve the Company as an Executive Advisor until June 30, 2023. Labor & Litigation Kevin Minchey was promoted to Vice President—Legal, Labor & Litigation from Associate General Counsel.

In his new role, he will lead Labor and Employment, Labor Administration, Regulatory, and Litigation functions in the Legal Department. His work will include overseeing compliance with federal, state, and local employment laws, collaborating with the Labor Administration team to administer collective bargaining agreements, and managing the Company’s litigation docket.

His team will also continue to support our Operations Department on regulatory matters.
Prior to joining Southwest in 2011, he practiced law in Phoenix and clerked for a federal judge in Michigan.
Evin’s passion for serving the People of Southwest Airlines makes him a perfect fit as he takes on his new role,” said Mark Shaw, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal & Regulatory Officer.

“We are excited for Kevin as he continues advocating for the more than 65,000 Southwest Employees across our expansive network.” Minchey holds a bachelor’s degree in Spanish from Utah State University and a law degree from Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

ABOUT SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.
Southwest Airlines Co.

Operates one of the world’s most admired and awarded airlines, offering its one-of-a-kind value and Hospitality at 121 airports across 11 countries.
Having celebrated its 50th Anniversary in 2021, Southwest took flight in 1971 to democratize the sky through friendly, reliable, and low-cost air travel and now carries more air travelers flying nonstop within the United States than any other airline 1,

Based in Dallas and famous for an Employee-first corporate Culture, Southwest maintains an unprecedented record of no involuntary furloughs or layoffs in its history. By empowering its more than 64,000 2  People to deliver unparalleled Hospitality, the maverick airline cherishes a passionate loyalty among as many as 130 million Customers carried a year.

That formula for success brought industry-leading prosperity and 47 consecutive years 3  of profitability for Southwest Shareholders (NYSE: LUV).
Southwest leverages a unique legacy and mission to serve communities around the world including harnessing the power of its People and Purpose to put communities at the Heart of its success.

Learn more by visiting Southwest.com/citizenship, Southwest is also continuing to develop tangible steps toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2050, including offering Customers an opportunity to help the airline offset its carbon emissions. To be part of the solution, visit Southwest.com/wannaoffsetcarbon,

Is Southwest Airlines in financial trouble?

The airline has not said how soon it will upgrade the systems that contributed to mass flight cancellations, or how much that will cost. Southwest was forced to cancel more than 16,700 flights during the height of the holiday travel period. Credit. Emil Lippe for The New York Times The meltdown that forced Southwest Airlines to cancel more than 16,700 holiday flights could cost the carrier between $725 million and $825 million, the airline said in a filing on Friday,

The total represents about as much as the airline earned in the first nine months of last year. The crisis shows what can go wrong when a company that millions of people rely on moves too slowly to invest in crucial but unglamorous parts of its operation. Southwest struggled to recover from frigid weather after its crew scheduling processes failed to keep up with flight cancellations and quickly reassign pilots and flight attendants.

“A number of their employees, flight attendants and pilots, have been warning about this for years — that they were underinvesting and that they were one storm away from disaster,” said Helane Becker, a managing director and senior analyst at Cowen, an investment bank.

Southwest said on Friday that it now expects to report a loss in the final three months of 2022.
About half of the cost it expects to incur in that quarter — $400 million to $425 million — relates to revenue lost from the canceled flights.
The remaining amount stems from spending on customer reimbursements, the value of loyalty points offered to affected passengers and overtime pay for employees.

Southwest canceled about as many flights in the last 10 days of 2022 as it did in the 10 months prior, according to FlightAware data. The airline declined to disclose how many passengers were affected by the cancellations, though estimates run into the hundreds of thousands.

Southwest’s chief executive, Bob Jordan, told reporters on a call last week that Southwest would accelerate improvements to its systems, but he would not say how quickly it would act. The airline may provide more detail in the days and weeks ahead — Southwest is scheduled to report its complete financial results for the fourth quarter of 2022 at the end of this month.

The carrier’s net income in the first nine months of 2022 was $759 million. The ongoing cost to the airline will also depend on how many people file claims for reimbursements and how generous or stingy Southwest is in paying claims. Image Southwest also faces the prospect of spending money to upgrade its computer systems, including the one for scheduling crews.

Credit. Taylor Glascock for The New York Times To understand how costs can add up, consider the case of the Horter family. After their travel plans were upended last week, Julie and Len Horter spent hours trying to reschedule their flight over the phone and at the airport. They salvaged the trip, but not before spending $300 on car rentals and a hotel.

The amount could be even higher if the couple decide to claim the money they forfeited by taking extra time off work. They were taking their 14-year-old daughter, Adeline, from their home in Michigan to Los Angeles, where she and her high school marching band performed in the Rose Parade, Ms.

What are the three main types of audits?

Key Takeaways –

There are three main types of audits: external audits, internal audits, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audits.External audits are commonly performed by Certified Public Accounting (CPA) firms and result in an auditor’s opinion which is included in the audit report.An unqualified, or clean, audit opinion means that the auditor has not identified any material misstatement as a result of his or her review of the financial statements.External audits can include a review of both financial statements and a company’s internal controls.Internal audits serve as a managerial tool to make improvements to processes and internal controls.

Who audits Nokia?

Deloitte Oy, based in Helsinki, Finland, served as our auditor for the financial year ended 31 December 2021 and for the financial year ended 31 December 2020. The auditor is elected annually by our shareholders at the Annual General Meeting for the financial year commencing next after the election.


EURm	2021	2020
Audit fees 1	22.0	22.3
Audit-related fees 2	1.9	0.4
Tax fees 3	0.2	0.6
Other fees 4	0.1	1.6
Total	24.2	24.9

1) Audit fees consist of fees incurred for the annual audit of the Group’s consolidated financial statements and the statutory financial statements of the Group’s subsidiaries. (2) Audit-related fees consist of fees billed for assurance and related services that are reasonably related to the performance of the audit or review of the Group’s financial statements or that are traditionally performed by the independent auditor, and include consultations concerning financial accounting and reporting standards; advice and assistance in connection with local statutory accounting requirements; due diligence related to mergers and acquisitions; and audit procedures in connection with investigations in the pre-litigation phase and compliance programs.

They also include fees billed for other audit services, which are those services that only the independent auditor can reasonably provide, and include the provision of comfort letters and consents in connection with statutory and regulatory filings and the review of documents filed with the SEC and other capital markets or local financial reporting regulatory bodies.

(3) Tax fees include fees billed for: (i) services related to tax compliance including preparation and/or review of tax returns, preparation, review and/or filing of various certificates and forms and consultation regarding tax returns and assistance with revenue authority queries; compliance reviews, advice and assistance on other indirect taxes; and transaction cost analysis; (ii) services related to tax audits; (iii) services related to individual compliance (preparation of individual tax returns and registrations for employees (non-executives), assistance with applying visa, residency, work permits and tax status for expatriates); (iv) services related to technical guidance on tax matters; (v) services related to transfer pricing advice and assistance with tax clearances; and (vi) tax consultation and planning (advice on stock-based remuneration, local employer tax laws, social security laws, employment laws and compensation programs and tax implications on short-term international transfers).

Who is United Airlines auditor?

Alexander P. Burnett – Managing Director – Internal Audit – United Airlines | LinkedIn.

Who is the auditor for Delta Airlines?

table>

DELTA’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS DELTA’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR PROPOSAL 2. For Against Abstain A VOTE AGAINST PROPOSALS 3, 4, 5, AND 6, For Against Abstain WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY SHAREOWNERS. 2. To ratify the appointment of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent auditors for the year ending December 31, 2004. o o o 3. Related to cumulative voting for directors. o o o 4. Related to restricted share programs. o o o Dated:_, 2004 _ Signature _ Signature (Joint Owners) Please sign exactly as your name(s) appears on the proxy/voting Instruction card. 5. Related to retirement benefits for senior executives. o o o 6. Related to prohibition on compensation increases or benefit enhancements for executives. o o o Please indicate if you plan to attend this meeting o o Yes No

Why is Southwest so profitable?

Southwest Airlines ( LUV ) has become known over the past two decades as a thriving airline company operating in a time when most airlines have been struggling. Any company operating in the airline industry must maintain and strengthen a set of competitive advantages that differentiate it from its competitors.

Southwest Airlines’ business model is based on extremely efficient operations, low-cost pricing, and innovative logistics solutions.
Furthermore, their strategy also includes a deep focus on customer experience and looking ahead.
Finally, none of this would be possible without a motivated team of employees.

Through this sound strategy, Southwest achieved multiple competitive advantages that have allowed it to stay relevant in a rapidly changing world.

How auditing is done?

Fieldwork – During the fieldwork phase, auditors conduct the steps identified in the planning process. Steps often include conducting interviews, reviewing laws, policies and best practice, verifying sample transactions, analyzing data sets, and conducting surveys.

How often do audits happen?

What is the chance of being audited by the IRS? – The overall audit rate is extremely low, less than 1% of all tax returns get examined within a year. However, these nine items are more likely to increase your risk of being examined.

What is the most common type of audit?

Financial Audit – A financial audit is an analysis of the fairness of the information contained within an entity’s financial statements, It is conducted by a CPA firm, which is independent of the entity under review. This is the most commonly conducted type of audit, and is required for all publicly-held companies.

Who is Coca Cola’s auditor?

Barry Ballow is vice president of internal audit for The Coca-Cola Company. Prior to this role, Ballow served as the Finance Director for Global Juice and Stills Beverages. Ballow started with the Company in 1995 and has had various roles of increasing responsibility including Director of Trading and Procurement, Audit Director in the Corporate Audit Department, and as a manager for Coca-Cola plants in California and Ohio.

Who audits Aston Martin?

KPMG will not re-pitch for the audit of Aston Martin just months after the luxury car manufacturer carried out a £4bn float on the Stock Exchange, as regulatory pressures begin to warp the relationship between the Big Four and their major corporate accounts.

The professional services firm declined the opportunity to comment on the matter to AccountingWEB, as the car maker said the re-tendering process was not down to any unhappiness with KPMG’s work, according to Sky News.
PMG has audited Aston Martin since 2007, and the pair were all smiles during the British manufacturer’s October 3 IPO.

Aston Martin, famed as the vehicle of choice for Ian Fleming’s iconic fictional spy James Bond, announced plans to put its 2019 audit out for tender when it released the IPO prospectus. The significant decision not to re-pitch such a major account in the months following an IPO arrives at the start of a pivotal time for the Big Four accounting firms, who are gearing for a swathe of regulatory changes following years of scandal and criticism.

Although they appear to have escaped the threat of break-up for now, a major review of the profession by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) concluded audits of the UK’s FTSE 350 companies should be carried out by at least two firms, one of which should be from outside the quartet of KPMG, Deloitte, EY and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Currently, the four firms conduct 97% of big companies’ audits while also providing them with consulting and other services such as data analytics, as KPMG did with Aston Martin’s rival McLaren until the Formula 1 team terminated a 10-year partnership just three years in.

The CMA hopes opening up the market will give smaller accounting groups access to larger clients, allowing them to develop their skills. It appears the threat of action is already enough to set change in motion, as experts told AccountingWEB last year when the four firms began to separate audit and consulting ahead of any formal rule change.

The split between KMPG and Aston Martin follows a parting by Vodafone and PwC in December over a potential conflict of interest issue in the administration of mobile phone retailer Phones 4U. KPMG and its ilk are also likely to be answering to a new accounting regulator sooner rather than later, as the abolition of “toothless” Financial Reporting Council (FRC) appears increasingly likely following independent review.

The beleaguered regulator was heavily criticised for clearing KPMG of any wrongdoing following an investigation into books of lender HBOS.
The auditor had given the bank a clean bill of health shortly before HBOS collapsed and was subsequently bailed out by the government.

At Aston Martin, a search for new auditors is underway, and will be carried out by the car maker’s audit committee, whose chairman, Richard Solomons, qualified as a chartered accountant with KPMG in 1985.

Solomons then took the role of chairman at Intercontinental Hotels Group from 2011 to 2017, before becoming appointed chairman of the Aston Martin board prior to the IPO. Aston Martin announced a loss of £163m in 2016, before a major turnaround in 2017, leading to a full-year pre-tax profit of £87m.

Who audits Toshiba?

Embarrassing accounting debacles at Olympus and Toshiba haven’t been enough to shake up Japan’s cozy audit world. The government has issued penalties and has pledged to improve the corporate governance of its businesses, but audit violations have continued with only voluntary new restrictions introduced.

Japan saw 60 accounting discrepancies, including inflated numbers in reports, in 2020—more than double its 24 cases in 2010, according to Tokyo Shoko Research data,
Just last month, Japan Display Inc., parts supplier for Apple Inc., was hit with 2.16 billion yen ($19.8 million) in administrative fines for overstating profits from 2015 to 2019.

Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. last year faced 2.42 billion yen in administrative fines for falsifying executive compensation in its disclosures. Critics say Japan’s regulator, the Financial Services Agency, has been too soft on its deterrence measures. The Japan Institute of Certified Public Accountants is drawing up voluntary measures to cut the cord on practices that can lead to lax oversight.

From April 1, partners at audit firms will no longer be able to work with the same company for more than 10 years.
Time worked on an audit prior to becoming partner will be counted.
At the time of the 2015 Toshiba Corp.

Scandal, the multinational had retained the same auditor for more than 40 years.
Developments overseas have had some impact.

After the fallout of U.K.’s Carillion Plc, where firm rotations were in place, followed by the ongoing Wirecard AG case in Germany, a senior financial agency official with direct knowledge of the situation said the agency was closely monitoring the actions of its European counterparts.

The revised corporate law in March mandates corporations to carry at least one independent outside director. “In Japan, people think that if you bring in an outside independent director, you have good corporate governance,” Takaaki Wakasugi, co-director of Tokyo-based Japan Corporate Governance Research Institute, said in a video interview.

It’s more important to enforce corporate governance codes and rules, he said. The regulator has been feeling the heat from the 2011 Olympus Corp. accounting scandal, which resulted in minor administrative fines of 191 million yen. When Toshiba’s case followed, the agency slapped 7.37 billion yen in administrative fines. Toshiba’s auditor Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC faced more than 2.1 billion yen in administrative fines and suspension of its partners up to six months.

Such regulatory actions have yet to catch the attention of the entirety of Japan Inc.
The financial regulator introduced a voluntary governance code with auditors publishing detailed annual quality reviews after Toshiba in 2017.

But less than 20% of audit firms for listed companies had introduced them by July 2019, according to government data.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board introduced audit quality indicators for auditors to explain to investors and others actions by companies. The Japanese regulator has felt indicators help “boost competition among auditing firms,” the senior agency official said.

Who is Pfizer’s auditor?

Pfizer’s auditors have been KPMG and its predecessor firm, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., since 1987.

Who is the auditor of Rolls Royce?

KPMG fined 3.3 million pounds over Rolls-Royce audit The logo of KPMG is seen at the high profile startups and high tech leaders gathering, Viva Tech,in Paris, France May 16, 2019. REUTERS/Charles Platiau/File Photo LONDON, May 24 (Reuters) – Britain’s accounting watchdog said on Tuesday it has fined KPMG 3.3 million pounds ($4.16 million) over the company’s audit of aero engine maker Rolls-Royce more than a decade ago.

Rolls-Royce was fined almost 500 million pounds by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office in 2017 over the payments to agents in India, under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
The FRC said it fined Anthony Sykes, KPMG’s audit partner in the Rolls-Royce audit, 150,000 pounds, reduced to 112,500 pounds for his admissions of failures.

“Allegations of bribery and malpractice through the use of intermediaries and ‘advisers’ in the defence field were prominent at the time of the audit,” the FRC said.
KPMG will also have to pay for an external review of its policies on how it audits a company’s compliance with laws and regulations.
Jon Holt, KPMG’s UK chief executive, said he was pleased to have concluded this “historic matter” and was sorry that parts of the audit did not meet the professional standards required.

“In addition to resolving legacy cases, we are also investing significantly in training, controls and technology to improve quality and resilience in our audit practice,” Holt said.

The FRC last week asked an independent tribunal to endorse a 14.4 million pound fine for KPMG after the auditor admitted it misled the watchdog during spot checks on audits of construction group Carillion and software firm Regenersis.

Over the past year KPMG has also received fines for its work with bed maker Silentnight, and audits of convenience store chain Conviviality and Revolution Bars

The FRC is separately investigating KPMG’s audit of Carillion.
($1 = 0.7942 pounds)
Reporting by Huw Jones Editing by David Goodman and Susan Fenton

Our Standards:

: KPMG fined 3.3 million pounds over Rolls-Royce audit

Who is the auditor of Volkswagen?

Frank Kallen – Head of Internal Audit – Volkswagen AG | LinkedIn.

Who is the auditor for IBM?

IBM Goes Down In Flames In Audit Whistleblower Suit Before D.C. Circuit Court – Audit – United States Readers of this blog will remember that I previously posted on the shocking case brought by whistleblower Paul Cimino against IBM arising out of a predatory software audit conducted by IBM of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

Although Cimino worked for IBM he was apparently so horrified by IBM’s complete fabrication of non-compliance findings in order to force the IRS into a new and more expensive ($265 million to be exact) license agreement that he blew the whistle and filed a claim under the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”).

You can read our previous blog post, The district court dismissed the key fraudulent inducement claim finding that it was not credible that the IRS would enter into a new and more expensive contract with IBM just to get out from under substantial audit penalties.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed and found that Mr. Cimino had plausibly alleged that “but for” the fraudulent audit, the IRS would never had entered into the new license agreement. The court remanded the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. This is a big win for Cimino and although decided under the FCA, can be instructive for all those companies out there who have suffered through predatory audits by major software publishers.

The Court explained the case as follows: “This qui tam action began when Paul Cimino filed a complaint alleging that IBM violated the FCA. As a former senior sales representative for IBM, Cimino helped sell software to the IRS. Based on knowledge acquired on the job, Cimino alleged that IBM fraudulently induced the IRS to enter a $265 million license agreement for “unwanted, unneeded” software.

*** Faced with the possibility of losing significant revenue, IBM allegedly devised a scheme to pressure the IRS into another long-term deal. IBM planned to conduct a “friendly” audit, anticipating that the IRS was overusing the software and therefore would owe a significant amount in compliance penalties.

IBM would then leverage the penalties by offering to waive them in exchange for a new agreement. IBM retained Deloitte LLP to perform the audit. Contrary to IBM’s expectations, Deloitte’s initial audit showed the IRS was not significantly overusing the licenses and owed only $500,000 in compliance penalties—a relatively small amount for a contract of this size.

IBM never released these audit results to the IRS.
Instead, IBM worked with Deloitte to manipulate the results.

For example, IBM counted licenses on discontinued servers as in constant use, even though they were never used.
Deloitte first presented the number of overused licenses from this manipulated audit to Adam Kravitz at the IRS.

Cimino alleged that “Kravitz rejected the audit findings because, in his words, ‘IBM cannot substantiate that the IRS is out of compliance.'” IBM then manipulated the audit again to show an outstanding $292 million in compliance penalties. IBM shared this number with the IRS, despite the act that one IBM employee considered the number “ridiculous,” and another “was ‘not comfortable representing’ that number to the IRS.” As we have warned before, avoid “friendly” software audits by software publishers as there is nothing friendly about them.

If Oracle or IBM or whatever software company wants to conduct an audit, then they should issue a formal audit notice and do so. These “friendly” audits are often nothing more than fishing expeditions where the sales team hopes to turn non-compliance findings into a big payday and a big contract. Licensees should stand on their contractual rights and not fall into these traps.

Another interesting aspect of the case is how IBM allegedly was attempting to charge the IRS by claiming licensing fees for non-use of the IBM software. The court pointed to allegations that IBM claimed fees for discontinued servers for constant use even though they were never used.

We see similar attempts by Oracle and others to charge customers a licensing fee on servers where no Oracle software is being used, such as in the case of Oracle’s expansive VMware assertions, which involve non-contractual and non-binding policies. Customers under audit should carefully review license agreements and challenge during audit resolution negotiations policies that are not expressly incorporated into the contract.

Careful attention should be paid to assertions that payment must be made for non-use by the customer of the auditing company’s software, or for potential future use that has not yet occurred. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter.

Who is the auditor of Johnson and Johnson?

Ed Davis – SVP & Chief Audit Executive – Johnson & Johnson | LinkedIn.

How much do FAA auditors make?

Work From Home Aviation Safety Auditor Salary

	Annual Salary	Weekly Pay
Top Earners	$100,000	$1,923
75th Percentile	$77,000	$1,480
Average	$61,029	$1,173
25th Percentile	$36,000	$692

Who is Ralph Lauren’s auditor?

Danielle Leone – Internal Audit Manager, SOX – Ralph Lauren | LinkedIn.

Who is the auditor of Marks and Spencer?

During the year Deloitte LLP (‘Deloitte’), the external Auditor of Marks and Spencer Group plc (the ‘Group’), may be requested to support various projects for the Group.

Who is Vyvianna Quinonez Southwest Airlines?

Woman Sentenced to 15 Months in Federal Custody for Interfering with Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant SAN DIEGO – Vyvianna M. Quinonez of Sacramento was sentenced in federal court today to 15 months in federal custody for interfering with a Southwest Airlines flight attendant.

In addition, U.S. District Court Judge Todd W. Robinson ordered Quinonez to pay $25,981.57 in restitution and a $7,500 fine and imposed three years of supervised release. While on supervised release, Quinonez will be prohibited from flying on commercial aircraft and must participate in anger management classes or counseling, among other conditions.

Investigation launched into Southwest Airlines after holiday travel debacle | Rush Hour

Last year, Quinonez pleaded guilty to one count of interference with flight crew members and attendants, admitting that she assaulted a flight attendant by punching her in the face and head with a closed fist and grabbing her hair. According to admissions in her plea agreement, on May 23, 2021, Quinonez was a passenger aboard Southwest Airlines Flight 700 from Sacramento International Airport to San Diego International Airport.

During the flight’s final descent, Quinonez failed to comply with federal rules and regulations.

She was not wearing her seat belt, pulled her tray table down, and was not wearing her facemask properly.
Court documents state that Quinonez failed to comply when a flight attendant instructed her to fasten her seatbelt.

A short time later, another flight attendant instructed Quinonez to fasten her seat belt and stow her tray table for her own safety and wear her mask correctly. Quinonez did not comply and talked back to the flight attendant while shouting profanities.

The plea agreement states Quinonez began filming the flight attendant on her cellphone and pushed the flight attendant.
Quinonez admitted she stood up and intentionally assaulted the flight attendant.
The assault was captured on video by another passenger sitting a few rows ahead of Quinonez.

Several passengers attempted to stop Quinonez by grabbing at her clothing and arms.

Court documents state that the passenger sitting directly in front of Quinonez told investigators that she believed she “softened the blows” by grabbing Quinonez’s arm. A male passenger sitting nearby jumped between Quinonez and the flight attendant, instructing Quinonez to sit down.

The flight attendant was taken to the hospital and sustained several injuries.

Three of the flight attendant’s teeth were chipped, resulting in two teeth later being replaced by crowns.
The flight attendant’s left eye was bruised and swollen; she sustained a cut under her left eye, requiring three stitches; and she had a bruise in the shape of fingers on her right forearm.

Due to the assault, the flight attendant was not able to perform her normal safety and customer service duties. In a letter filed with the court, the Vice President of Inflight Operations for Southwest Airlines stated that Quinonez “created a situation onboard Flight 700 that jeopardized the entire flight and created an unsafe environment.” She explained that Quinonez’s “actions negatively impacted our workgroup beyond description,

causing fear to come permanently into the workplace.” The letter concluded, “Southwest hopes that the ultimate sentence imposed in this matter will serve as a deterrent for others who may contemplate engaging in similar dangerous behavior aboard our aircraft.” “Violence on aircraft endangers the lives of all onboard,” said U.S.

Attorney Randy Grossman. “Attacks on flight crew members, who perform vital jobs to ensure passenger safety, will not be tolerated. We will pursue criminal charges against those who violate the law both at the airport and aboard aircraft while in flight.” Grossman commended the prosecution team, the agents and officers from FBI and San Diego Harbor Police, as well as the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration for their excellent work on this case.

If you believe you are a victim or a witness to a crime occurring aboard an aircraft, immediately report it to the FBI ( or call 1-800-CALL-FBI).

DEFENDANT Case Number 21-CR-2816-TWR
Vyvianna M. Quinonez Age: 29 Sacramento, CA
SUMMARY OF CHARGES

Interference with Flight Crew Members and Attendants – Title 49, U.S.C., 46504

Maximum penalty: Twenty years in prison and $250,000 fine
INVESTIGATING AGENCIES

Federal Bureau of Investigation
San Diego Harbor Police
Transportation Security Administration

Federal Aviation Administration

: Woman Sentenced to 15 Months in Federal Custody for Interfering with Southwest Airlines Flight Attendant

Who is Disney’s auditor?

As I wrote yesterday, in August 2019 I reported on fraud at Walt Disney Company alleged by a whistleblower: Sandra Kuba, formerly a senior financial analyst in Disney’s revenue-operations department who worked for the company for 18 years, alleges that employees working in the parks-and-resorts business segment systematically overstated revenue by billions of dollars by exploiting weaknesses in the company’s accounting software.

What started as an accumulation of errors and unintentional misstatements became intentional inflation of revenue in Disney’s Parks and Resorts business segment, according to Kuba, who told me more about her SEC whistleblower tip while I was reporting the August 2019 story.
Uba brought her concerns to the SEC in Aug.2017.

She provided the SEC with more information throughout the rest of 2017, and has continued to do so after being terminated on Sept 21, 2017, she says, in retaliation for her complaints. Disney’s 2003 annual report said that the company’s implementation of the new SAP ERP was “designed to standardize, streamline and consolidate information delivery throughout the company.” Kuba alleged in whistleblower tips filed with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission beginning in 2017 that Disney personnel began exploiting weaknesses in a new accounting system beginning in 2003.
A source tells me the SEC and other law enforcement agencies continue investigating Kuba’s tips and the additional information they have received since her reports.

Walt Disney Company had not yet fully completed its implementation of SAP’s ERP globally on February 1, 2002, when it announced to the press that it would cease using its auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, as its lead consulting firm and systems integrator for the project.

The Wall Street Journal reported: Walt Disney Co.
Said it will no longer purchase consulting services from the same accounting firm that audits its books, a move that challenges the accounting industry’s belief that a single firm can play both roles objectively.
Disney, the first major company to make such an announcement The WSJ said Disney made the decision to stop using PwC for its consulting projects under pressure from a shareholder proposal at its annual meeting that same month.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP has been Disney’s external auditor continuously since 1938. The proposal questioned why Disney had previously paid its auditor $31.9 million for non-auditing services, fees that dwarfed the $8.6 million Disney paid PwC for its audit in 2001, according to its proxy statement.

Disney had previously opposed the shareholder proposal, which the company thought would became moot after the decision.
Another report published by Knight Ridder Tribune Business News on February 1, 2002 provided a few other alternatives for solving the problem.

Going forward, we will not be entering into any new consulting assignments with our outside auditors,” Eisner said.

“We are currently evaluating the consulting assignments between our auditors and Disney that are already in place.” Eisner said if PriceWaterhouseCoopers completes a planned spin-off of its consulting arm in an initial public offering on a timely basis, many of its current Disney assignments would continue.

However, the shareholders didn’t back down.

But the group bringing the proposal, an investment arm of the union pension fund United Association, decided to pursue the matter anyway.
The group is pursuing such shareholder proposals at the annual meetings of about 30 companies, and the Disney gathering was its first opportunity to bring the matter to a vote.

At the Disney meeting, its proposal was supported by Connecticut Treasurer Denise L. Nappier. The proposal was rejected by about 54% of the voting shareholders. It did receive support from about 40% of voting shareholders, however – a tally that would have been impressive if Disney hadn’t taken the action it did.

After the proposal’s defeat was announced, Disney Chairman and Chief Executive Michael Eisner said the company would “proceed as if it had been” passed. When Disney filed its annual meeting proxy, in January of 2003, the company disclosed that it was no longer using its PwC for its SAP financial information software implementation because PwC had sold its consulting business to IBM in October 2002 and would no longer be providing consulting services to any clients.

Disney also disclosed it had paid PwC $40.8 million more in 2002 for “financial information systems design and implementation consulting.” Between Disney’s announcement in February 2002 and the end of 2002, Congress had also, in July, passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The SOx law was a reaction to the perceived significant conflicts of interest presented by Arthur Andersen’s dual audit and consulting, as well as tax, work for Enron, which collapsed in bankruptcy on December 1, 2001. The law, amongst other provisions, strictly prohibited auditors of public companies, like PwC, from providing financial system design and implementation consulting services to their audit clients such as Disney.

ComputerWeekly.com, however, reported on June 27, 2003 that six months after Disney’s proxy was filed, the global business software project was still only half completed. The Walt Disney Corporation has just completed a major update of its UK back-office business systems.

The upgrade marked the halfway point of a global £240m IT consolidation programme that is set to deliver £78m a year in ongoing savings. Computerweekly.com also reported, based on comments made at SAP’s Sapphire conference in Orlando in June 2003 by Tom Stauffer, at that time the vice-president of Disney’s Project Tomorrowland, that the first phase of the software implementation, covering corporate offices in the US, went live in June 2002.

That phase was followed three months later by a second wave, which covered the Disneyland theme park in California. Tom Stauffer still works at Disney, now its V.P. of Records and Information Management. His LinkedIn profile says he was V.P of Project Tomorrowland, the Global SAP implementation at Disney from 2001 to 2005 and that he led the “HR/Payroll/T&E functional team.” Those system go-live dates reported by Computerweekly.com are four and seven months, respectively, after Disney told the WSJ it had stopped using PwC as a consultant but prior to when the deal for IBM to buy PwC’s consulting firm closed in October 2002.

The initial installation was on time and on budget, according to Computerweekly’s report, but Stauffer told Sapphire conference attendees that serious problems emerged in October 2002. The project work exposed a “major bug” in a Disney internally developed accounting software package, not the SAP system itself, Stauffer told the SAP conference attendees.

The problem, Stauffer told the conference, threatened to prevent Disney closing the books on its 2002 fiscal year, which ends September 30. The Disney Tomorrowland project team also received reports of significant problems with the payroll caused by poor quality data being brought into the new system.

“The project team did not know what was wrong with the data and we did not engage the payroll staff in the upgrade,” Stauffer told the conference attendees, according to Computerweekly. Brian Sommer, President of technology consulting firm TechVentive, told me: “From my experience, the most vulnerable time for any financial system is during the initial configuration and data conversion as large amounts of data are often manipulated, reformatted, etc.

to get them into an acceptable format for the new system.” Senior executives at Disneyland had problems accessing key reports. “The company was already on SAP,” Computerweekly reported Stauffer telling the attendees. “As a result they and we were lulled into a false sense of confidence.” The global implementation teams and the onsite Disneyland team underestimated the difference between an enterprise-wide implementation and a business unit one, Stauffer said.

As a result, said Stauffer, key reports were not mapped onto the new system.
That aligns with what the whistleblower told the SEC in 2017 and since — that the project team never created all of the required monitoring and audit reports needed.
Although Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in 2002, the standard for auditor reporting of an opinion on company’s internal controls over financial reporting, Auditing Standard No.2, was not approved by the new independent audit regulator, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, until March 4, 2004.

Auditing Standard No.2 includes several examples of how auditors should test and form an opinion on the design and effectiveness of general computer hardware and software controls such as controls over software program changes, for example or that changes to reports are appropriately authorized, tested, and approved before being implemented and testing of controls over logical access, for example, access to data files.

PwC, therefore, was not required to report an opinion on Disney’s internal controls over financial reporting or any weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting as a result of the “major bug” that threatened the timeliness of Disney’s 2002 year-end financial close as part of its overall opinion on Disney’s 2002 financial statements.

The standards changed again, effective in November 2007, with Auditing Standard No.5, which allowed auditors to place a greater dependence on the internal controls testing work performed by companies’ internal audit functions. Testing for reliance on financial software is now more explicit: As part of evaluating the period-end financial reporting process, the auditor should assess

The extent of information technology (“IT”) involvement in the period-end financial reporting process;

By 2007 there was an entire Appendix for a new Auditing Standard, No.12, devoted to the ” Consideration of Manual and Automated Systems and Controls.” The auditor should obtain an understanding of specific risks to a company’s internal control over financial reporting resulting from IT. Examples of such risks include:

Reliance on systems or programs that are inaccurately processing data, processing inaccurate data, or both; Unauthorized access to data that might result in destruction of data or improper changes to data, including the recording of unauthorized or non-existent transactions or inaccurate recording of transactions (particular risks might arise when multiple users access a common database); The possibility of IT personnel gaining access privileges beyond those necessary to perform their assigned duties, thereby breaking down segregation of duties; Unauthorized changes to data in master files; Unauthorized changes to systems or programs; Failure to make necessary changes to systems or programs; Inappropriate manual intervention; and Potential loss of data or inability to access data as required.

The formal sign-off process before the upgrade went live was enhanced, Stauffer told the SAP conference attendees back then, in an effort to emphasize local responsibility for the success of the project. “We had a sign-off process but we had some really junior people doing it.

There was not any local executive ownership.” Computerweekly quoted Stauffer saying that when Project Tomorrowland would be completed “sometime in 2004” it will have cost about £240 million, but that would be a savings “compared to what Disney would have spent in the next three to five years maintaining and upgrading legacy systems.” In June of 2005, IBM signed a seven-year, $730 million IT services contract with The Walt Disney Co.

to support “Disney’s IT infrastructure transformation.” That, reportedly, was not the first contract IBM had signed with Disney. IBM spokesman John Buscemi told Computerworld: “the new contract builds on a relationship between the two companies that expanded in 2001, when IBM’s business consulting services began work to consolidate Disney’s finance, human resource and payroll services onto a single SAP AG software platform.” Buscemi also said that IBM would be responsible for the ongoing development and support of key Disney software, including its SAP implementation and approximately 90 legacy applications from Disney theme parks and its resort business.

The applications would be supported on site at Disney facilities as well as at an IBM application center in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
The Disney relationship with IBM may have started sooner than October 2002, when IBM bought PwC’s consulting arm, in anticipation of the transition from PwC.
But it’s seems likely IBM serviced Disney’s SAP project primarily with the PwC team it acquired.

Fees for consulting services provided by non-audit firms are not required to be disclosed in proxies. The Computerweekly article still refers to the Tomorrowland team’s consulting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the present tense in June 2003. Quoting Disney’s Stauffer: The Tomorrowland team, with consultancy Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, has been able to create a series of common business processes across the group and take strides towards developing a group-wide shared services model for business processes.PwC has never reported a material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting due to the absence of monitoring and audit reports in any year since 2004.

PwC has also never reported a material weakness in internal controls over financial reporting due to the absence of senior level sponsorship and accountability for the Tomorrowland project or subsequent related projects in any year since 2004.
I am not alleging here that PwC violated auditor independence rules at that time, based on the reported timing of the work, Disney’s reported cessation of PwC’s consulting work in 2002, and the sale of PwC’s consulting arm to IBM in October 2002.

But it’s not clear from Disney’s statements about when PwC stopped work and other news reports about when IBM started which firm or who supported Disney’s SAP project between February 2002 and October 2002 when the PwC employees on the project moved over to IBM.

PwC continues to be Disney’s auditor, many of PwC’s former consulting practice employees moved to IBM, the successor Disney SAP consulting firm, and PwC reestablished its SAP consulting practice after its non-compete with IBM expired in 2007, supported by PwC’s purchase of BearingPoint’s commercial consulting practice in June of 2009.

Has PwC, as Disney’s auditor, been too conflicted to report material weaknesses in internal controls over financial reporting in its opinion for Disney’s later annual reports because PwC, and its former employees, were responsible for the design, configuration and implementation, of the SAP software globally? A spokeswoman for PwC declined comment based on client confidentiality.

The spokesman for Disney did not respond to my request for responses and comment on a detailed list of questions about PwC’s scope and term of consulting services for Disney and about the SAP software vulnerabilities described by Kuba and Disney’s own project lead.
In a series of interviews last year Kuba said she’s told the SEC that the absence of internal controls and audit reports, as a result of the alleged incomplete SAP implementation, enabled managers to record more revenue faster without detection.

According to Kuba, and reports I received subsequent to my article in MarketWatch from current and former employees, Disney’s SAP accounting system still does not provide complete real-time reporting. That would prevent managers, and internal and external auditors, from validating, reconciling or auditing transactions between business units, such as between Walt Disney Travel Company and the theme parks and cruise ships.

Uba told the SEC in her whistleblower filings that Disney’s A La Carte system, which records food, beverage and tour reservations, was out of out of balance with its point of sale system by $49 million each year for 5 years from 2010 to 2015 because the two systems do not talk to each other.
Disney has never disclosed the alleged lack of integration of the two systems in any public filings or the potential that this alleged lack of integration could present a risk for material misstatements due to error or fraud.

The situation is so bad, Kuba told the SEC, Disney allegedly created software programs to eliminate the variances by creating an automatic journal entries to balance the SAP accounting system to the point of sale system, bypassing built-in SAP internal controls.

The SEC was also provided with email evidence that Disney’s financial systems professionals also automated the process of moving money around without actual accounting journals entries, thereby completely eliminating any audit trails for the transactions. Changing financial data by accessing the system’s database software directly rather than through the SAP software under processes governed by accounting standards and internal controls would directly violate both SAP and Oracle database licensing agreements.

That’s according to an expert on ERP software vendor licenses I spoke to who prefers to remain anonymous because they have business relationships with both vendors. Dennis Howlett, a freelance writer, analyst, and commenter on his site Diginomica, told me: “There’s nothing inherent in any ERP, including SAP, that would prevent this if access and authorization privileges and accounting workflows were set up poorly in the first place or if employees with high level systems access know exactly how the software operates and make code changes or additions that enable fraud.” SAP declined to comment.

At least one Disney employee has already taken advantage of a weakness in Disney’s software and its lack of integration with the point of sale system for his own benefit.
Renan Dias Da Rocha Gomes, a merchandise host who worked aboard the Disney Wonder was arrested in Oct.2017 for the exploiting Disney’s point of sale system’s controls from at least October 2015 through October 27, 2017 by loading $260,000 onto Disney gift cards.

Gomes spent part of this amount, $38k, on a Disney World vacation. The rooms, food and beverage, tickets, and merchandise were actually given away in this instance but revenue was recognized. Disney never received any payment for the gift cards. Gomes was sentenced in March 2018 to 15 months in prison.