Skip to main content

PwC ordered to pay $625M in damages over bank’s audit

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP was ordered to pay the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. more than $625 million for negligence in the audit of Colonial BancGroup Inc., an Alabama bank holding company that failed during the financial crisis.
U.S. District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein issued the ruling Monday granting the FDIC’s damages request after she found in December that Pricewaterhouse had failed in its audits of the bank from 2003 to 2005 and for 2008. The firm didn’t design its audits to detect fraud or gather enough evidence of its funding to sign reports for those years, she said.
“PwC US is disappointed by today’s ruling and we don’t believe the FDIC is entitled to the recovery of any damages in this case in light of the Court’s prior findings that numerous employees at Colonial actively and substantially interfered with our audits," said Phil Beck, an attorney for the firm. "We intend to pursue an appeal."
Colonial BancGroup was the parent company of Colonial Bank, which collapsed in 2009 amid a fraud perpetrated by its largest customer, Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp. Former Taylor Bean chairman Lee Farkas and five other Taylor Bean executives were convicted for their roles.
From 2002 through August 2009, Farkas sold more than $1.5 billion in mortgage loans that to Colonial Bank that Taylor Bean had already committed or sold to other investors.
Colonial Bank was the sixth-largest bank failure in U.S. history, and its collapse cost the FDIC’s insurance fund about $4.2 billion. PricewaterhouseCoopers settled similar allegations by the trustee for Taylor Bean in the middle of a trial in Miami, in August 2016.
The PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP logo sits on 51-storey skyscraper Tower 185 as an aircraft flies above in Frankfurt, Germany.
Alex Kraus/Bloomberg
Bloomberg News

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bond Listing

FMDQ OTC Securities Exchange provides an efficient platform for registration, listing, quotation and valuation of bonds. FMDQ through its trading and surveillance systems and and the publication of FMDQ Daily Quotations List has empowered the Nigerian sovereign bonds and other classes of bonds with price discovery, transparency and market integrity. Bonds listed and admitted on FMDQ are traded by its Dealing Members some of which act as primary dealers to the sovereign domestic bonds. FMDQ Dealing Members act as market makers to the Nigerian sovereign bonds and some other classes of bonds thereby providing trading liquidity to the Nigerian bond market. The OTC securities exchange is responsible for circa 100% of bonds traded in Nigeria. As part of its mandate to provide exceptional levels of information transparency, FMDQ provides continuous disclosure of relevant information on fixed income issues listed on its platform. This information includes amongst others – issue siz...

Funds Listing

As a debt capital-focused securities exchange, FMDQ also provides a robust platform for the listing of Mutual and Exchange Traded Funds. Mutual Funds   are investment vehicles operated by money managers, which typically pools funds from investors for the purpose of investing the funds in securities such as stocks, bonds, and money market instruments. They are also classified according to the types of securities invested in. Fixed Income Mutual Funds, which are focused primarily on investments in government and corporate bonds; and Money Market Mutual Funds (or Money Market Funds) which are focused on investments in short-term debt securities such as treasury bills and commercial papers, are permitted for listing and trading on FMDQ, in line with the provisions of the FMDQ Bond Listing and Quotation Rules. Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs)   are marketable securities that track an index, a commodity, bond, or a basket of assets. Unlike mutual funds, ETFs are traded on an exc...

IASB consults on the accounting for financial instruments with characteristics of equity

The International Accounting Standards Board (Board) today has published for public comment a  Discussion Paper  on how companies issuing financial instruments should classify them in their financial statements. IAS 32  Financial Instruments: Presentation  currently sets out how a company that issues financial instruments should distinguish financial liabilities from equity instruments. That distinction is important because the classification of the instruments affects how a company’s financial position and performance are depicted. IAS 32 works well for most financial instruments. However, continuing financial innovation means that some companies find it challenging to classify some complex financial instruments that combine some features of both debt—liabilities—and ordinary shares—equity instruments. Challenges in classifying these instruments can result in diverse accounting in practice, which in turn makes it difficult for investors to assess and...