[email protected]

Opening Hours

Mon - Fri: 7AM - 7PM

Showing: 1 - 4 of 4 RESULTS

The Chon Aike province of Patagonia and related rocks in West Antarctica: A silicic large igneous province

first_imgThe field occurrence, age, classification and geochemistry of the Mesozoic volcanic rocks of Patagonia and West Antarctica are reviewed, using published and new information. Dominated by rhyolitic ignimbrites, which form a bimodal association with minor mafic and intermediate lavas, these constitute one of the largest silicic igneous provinces known, equivalent in size to many mafic LIPs. Diachronism is recognized between the Early–Middle Jurassic volcanism of eastern Patagonia (Marifil and Chon Aike formations) and the Middle Jurassic–earliest Cretaceous volcanism of the Andean Cordillera (El Quemado, Ibañez and Tobı́fera formations). This is accompanied by a change in geochemical characteristics, from relatively high-Zr and -Nb types in the east to subalkaline arc-related rocks in the west, although the predominance of rhyolites remains a constant factor. All of the associated mafic rocks are well fractionated compared to direct mantle derivatives. Petrogenetic models favour partial melting of immature lower crust as a result of the intrusion of basaltic magmas, possibly with some hybridisation of the liquids and subsequent fractionation by crystal settling or solidification and remelting. The formation of large amounts of intracrustal silicic melt acted as a density barrier against the further rise of mafic magmas, which are thus rare in the province.last_img read more


Enron case boosts Bar’s MDP stance

first_imgEnron case boosts Bar’s MDP stance February 15, 2002 Gary Blankenship Senior Editor Regular News Enron case boosts Bar’s MDP stance Senior EditorThe recent caller into National Public Radio’s Diane Rehm Show was indignant. The subject for the day was the collapse of Enron, and the caller wanted to know how Arthur Andersen, LLP, Enron’s auditor, could both audit the company and also sell it consulting services.Precisely the point, according to Bill Kalish, co-chair of The Florida Bar’s Special Commission on Multidisciplinary Practice/Ancillary Business. That’s the dilemma that attorneys who work for “consulting” accounting firms, or multidisciplinary practices, can find themselves in.If they discover a problem with a client of the MDP, to whom do they express their concern? To the client? To the consulting accounting firm? To both? To the public if it’s part of an audit?“This is exactly the reason why lawyers should not be in business with people who are not lawyers, for the simple reason people’s agendas are different,” Kalish said of the Enron/Andersen scandal. “CPAs, particularly those doing audits for the public companies, have different goals. They serve the public, we serve the clients. That’s not saying one is right or one is wrong. They just serve different purposes.”If nothing else, the issue has pushed the debate over MDPs, largely conducted between the legal profession and accounting firms, into the hot glare of public scrutiny. What will be the effect on MDPs, which some had described as an unstoppable tidal wave?“I think MDP is dead,” said Bar President Terry Russell. “This is a pretty good example of why it can’t work. If they were to inject that philosophy into law, that’s what could happen. That’s why we found MDPs incompatible with our core values.”The mood, at least for the moment, has dramatically shifted in Congress. A January AP story detailed political contributions Andersen had made over several years to members of Congress, some of whom intervened in 2000 when the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed stringent controls on auditing companies that also wanted to provide consulting services. Less strict regulations were eventually adopted.Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is leading one of the 11 congressional committee investigations into Enron and Andersen, and according to the AP story had received $57,000 in contributions from Andersen over the years. He previously had opposed legislation restricting auditing firms from engaging in consulting work for clients, but said in the story he might be changing his mind.Other lawmakers are already taking action. Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., and Sen. Joe Corzine, D-N.J., have announced they are introducing a bill that would ban auditing firms from providing consulting services to their auditing clients. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has introduced S. 1896, the Auditor Independence Act of 2002. It directs the SEC to develop rules along the lines of its original 2000 proposals.Those rules, Boxer said in introducing the legislation, would be aimed at “prohibiting accounting firms from providing management consulting services for the companies they audit and barring accounting firms from providing any other non-audit related services that could result in a potential conflict of interest.”As this News went to press, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was scheduled to have a hearing on the relationship between Enron and Andersen, and its Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee was set to look at accounting standards. Later in the month, the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee was set to take testimony on accounting and investor protection issues.Miami attorney Sherwin Simmons chaired the recent ABA commission that looked at MDPs and recommended that they be allowed in limited, controlled circumstances. [That recommendation was rejected by the House of Delegates with the opposition led by The Florida Bar.] He said what may have happened with Enron and Andersen went far beyond what MDP proponents advocated.“Those entities of the bar, committees, sections, and associations, that have spoken all agreed that the audit function and the consulting function — and I’m translating that into the legal functions — are incompatible in the same house and should be separated,” he said.The rules adopted by the SEC did contain that prohibition, but also had loopholes, which included companies with foreign operations, such as Enron, Simmons said, adding, “We did not [in the ABA recommendation] put any geographical limitations on the separation of audit and legal advice.”He foresees a two-step impact from the scandal.“One is simply because of the dramatic events, that will cause a slow-down at the accounting firm level [toward MDPs]. You don’t know what’s going to happen. . . and sorting it all out will take awhile,” Simmons said.“If it is determined somehow that legal services were provided, that will have a severe impact in the sense that the governing bodies would likely promulgate more stringent rules on the separation of audit and legal functions,” he added. “I expect the SEC will take a good, hard look at this issue. I think they ought to review their rule and expand it.”last_img read more


Fidelity bond legal dispute reveals credit union fraud

first_img continue reading » 13SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Another fidelity bond legal dispute between the NCUA and an insurance company revealed that a former manager and assistant manager were running a check-kiting scheme that led to a loss of nearly $700,000 and contributed to the involuntary liquidation of an Indiana credit union.According to court documents filed last week by the NCUA and Southwest Marine and General Insurance Co. of Scottsdale, Ariz., Sandra Santay, manager of the $7.5 million Lakeside Federal Credit Union in Hammond, Ind., and the credit union’s assistant manager, Paula Awe,  allegedly operated a check-kiting scheme through their Lakeside checking accounts from January 2012 to April 2015.The fraud was uncovered during an NCUA examination in April 2015. When examiners confronted Santay, she verbally admitted that she and Awe were kiting checks that amounted to $690,120. Soon after the NCUA determined Lakeside was insolvent and closed its operations in July, the $3 billion, South Bend, Ind.-based Teachers Credit Union purchased Lakeside’s loan portfolio and assumed its 2,280 members.last_img read more


Millions could die if virus allowed to spread unchecked: UN chief

first_imgGuterres stressed the need for a coordinated global response to contain a “health catastrophe” that already has claimed the lives of more than 9,000 people and infected more than 217,500 around the world.”We need to immediately move away from a situation where each country is undertaking its own health strategies to one that ensures, in full transparency, a coordinated global response, including helping countries that are less prepared to tackle the crisis,” he said.Guterres appealed to Group of 20 nations to help out.”A wealthy country must not be convinced that it has only to deal with its own citizens,” he said. “My very strong appeal to the G20 is to have a particular concern with African countries and others in the developing world. Millions of people could die from the new coronavirus, particularly in poor countries, if it is allowed to spread unchecked, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned Thursday, appealing for a coordinated global response to the pandemic.”If we let the virus spread like wildfire — especially in the most vulnerable regions of the world — it would kill millions of people,” Guterres said.”Global solidarity is not only a moral imperative, it is in everyone’s interests,” he said. Topics :center_img “We must absolutely be strong in supporting them because the virus will come, is coming to them,” the UN chief said. “If that support is denied, we could have catastrophic consequences.”We could have millions of people dying and this is absolutely unacceptable.”Guterres urged governments to give “the strongest support to the multilateral effort to fight the virus, led by the World Health Organization, whose appeals must be fully met.””The health catastrophe makes clear that we are only as strong as the weakest health system,” he said.In terms of support for the global economy, Guterres said the focus should be on helping the most vulnerable: low income workers and small and medium-sized businesses.”That means wage support, insurance, social protection, preventing bankruptcies and job loss,” he said.Financial facilities are needed to support countries in difficulty, he said, adding that the IMF, World Bank and other international institutions have a key role to play.”And we must refrain from the temptation of resorting to protectionism,” he said. “This is the time to dismantle trade barriers and re-establish supply chains.”last_img read more