3-1 Case Study 2: Franklin Industries Whistleblowing please see the attached documents

Get perfect grades by consistently using www.college-experts.com. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

3-1 Case Study 2: Franklin Industries Whistleblowing please see the attached documents

3-1 Case Study 2: Franklin Industries Whistleblowing please see the attached documents
Question: Case 3-4 Franklin Industries Whistleblowing (a GVV case) Natalie got the call she had been waiting for over six long months. Her complaint to the human resources department of Franklin Industries had been dismissed. It was HR’s conclusion that she was not retaliated against for reporting an alleged embezzlement by the Accounting Department manager. In fact, HR ruled there was no embezzlement at all. Natalie had been demoted from assistant manager of the department to staff supervisor seven months ago after informing Stuart Masters, the controller, earlier in 2018 about the embezzlement. Her blood started to boil as she thought about all the pain and agony these past six months without any level of satisfaction for her troubles. Natalie Garson is a CPA who works for Franklin Industries, a publicly-owned company and manufacturer of trusses and other structural components for home builders throughout the U.S. Six months ago she filed a complaint with HR after discussing a sensitive matter with her best friend and co-worker, Roger Harris. Natalie trusted Harris, who had six years’ experience at Franklin. The essence of the discussion was that Natalie was informed by the accounting staff of what appeared to be unusual transactions between Denny King, the department manager, and an outside company no one had ever heard of before. The staff had uncovered over $5 million payments, authorized by King, to Vic Construction. No one could find any documentation about Vic so the staff dug deeper and discovered that the owner of Vic Construction was Victoria King. Further examination determined that Victoria King and Denny King were sisters. Once Natalie was convinced there was more to it than meets the eye, she informed the internal auditors who investigated and found that Vic Construction made a $5 million electronic transfer to a separate business owned by Denny King. One thing lead to another and it was determined by the internal auditors that King had funneled $5 million to Vic construction, which, at a later date, transferred the money back to King. It was a $5 million embezzlement from Franklin Industries. Natalie met with Roger Harris that night and told him about the HR decision that went against her. She was concerned whether the internal auditors would act now in light of that decision. She knew the culture at Franklin was “don’t rock the boat.” That didn’t matter to her. She was always true to her values and not afraid to act when a wrongdoing had occurred. She felt particularly motivated in this case – it was personal. She felt the need to be vindicated. She hoped Roger would be supportive. As it turned out, Roger cautioned Natalie about taking the matter any further. He had worked for Franklin a lot longer than Natalie and knew the board of directors consisted mostly of insider directors. The CEO of Franklin was also the chair of the board. It was well known in the company that whatever the CEO wanted to do, the board rubber-stamped it. Natalie left the meeting with Roger wondering whether she was on her own. She knew she had to act but didn’t know the best way to go about it. Even though Roger cautioned against going to the CEO or board, Natalie didn’t dismiss that option. Questions Assume you are in Natalie’s position. Answer the following questions. 1. What are the ethical values in this case? What about professional values? 2. Consider the following assuming you have decided to do something about the embezzlement: a) What are the main arguments you are trying to counter. That is, what are the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? c) What levers can you use to influence those who disagree with you? d) What is your most powerful and persuasive response to the reasons and rationalizations you need to address? To whom should the argument be made? When and in what context? 3. Assume you have exhausted all your options within Franklin Industries. Is this a situation where you would consider filing a complaint with the SEC under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? What about Dodd-Frank? Explain.
3-1 Case Study 2: Franklin Industries Whistleblowing please see the attached documents
ACC 696 Case Study 2 Rubric For this case study, you will assess a Franklin Industries’ Whistleblowing case study for the relation of ethical decision -making and the responsibilities of the accountant. Please review the evaluation criteria in the rubric below, which highlights grading information . Prompt: Read case study 3 -4 in your text and answer the questions that follow. Your responses should be detailed and well -articulated. Your conclusions should be based on concepts and theories from your text, you should provide examples when applicable, and your writing should be pro fessional and error -fre e. Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (90%) Needs Improvement (70%) Not Evident (0%) Value Case Analysis Meets “P rofic ient” criteria and provides examples Analyzes case study questions with details and explanations Analyzes case study questions with minor gaps in details and explanations; has difficulty in applying both technical and communicative proficiency Does not pro vide in -depth analysis for the required case study questions 40 Conclusions Meets “P roficient” criteria , and conclusions are compared to current workplace scenarios Draws conclusions that are justified with evidence Draws logical conclusions, but does not defend with evidence Does not draw logical conclusions 35 Articulation of Response Meets “P roficient” criteria and is presented in a professional and easy -to-read format Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or o rganization and is of a sufficient length to provide necessary details in answering the question Submission has major errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that negatively impact readability and articulation of main ideas. Answers are brief and lacking in detail Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization that prevent understanding of ideas. Answers fail to address all parts of the question or omit important details 25 Earned Total 100%

Writerbay.net

Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper