I understand 'material weakness' to mean falsified/faked/misleading/corrupted. 1) what happened to basic language?, 2) do the legal/PR people using these words honestly believe they are fooling anyone?
My understanding is that "material" is a technical term in accounting. A "material" effect is one that will have a noticable impact on the business.
Example: $100 missing from a single petty cash account would have almost no impact on a multi-site business and wouldn't be reported as "material" losses. $100 missing from every petty cash account would be different and probably would be reported as a "material" deficiency because it means there is an issue with controls.
disclaimer: My experience with accounting is a single accounting class and having run a budget for a business with $60k monthly for a few months before I left.
They're covering their asses so they don't get sued for defamation.
If they say 'fraud', 'theft', 'lying' they are implying intent, which can be hard to prove (maybe they were just incompetent or mislead by someone else?).
A material weakness means there is a significant to the business (aka material) difference between what was written/reported, and what investigation found was true.
WHY that is doesn't matter for the purposes of clawing things back, and since they have solid proof of it, there you go.
Speculating on the reason or if a crime was committed until it's proven in a court of law is what gets high powered and highly paid attorneys excited, and the folks who are getting fired and the money clawed back can still afford those in spades even afterwards. Credit Suisse probably feels they already have enough problems.
That's correct. And the fact that the board disclosed it rather than the auditors is a big "we're caught"/"emperor has no clothes" moment. Who's the audit firm and when are they losing their license?
Nobody cared or the proletariat was coincidently not shown? this scandal seems to have been completely swept under the rug lending my argument credence. Also, were you living under a rock during occupy? These movements got systematically infiltrated and dismantled by Fed’s using obscene methods, like getting suspects pregnant. It’s unlikely we’ll ever actually know how bad their methods were because they were successful at forcing people back underground. Make no mistake though, these people are still around and still agitating, they’re just smarter now.
>dismantled by Fed’s using obscene methods, like getting suspects pregnant
The article says:
>One of the spies was Bob Lambert, who has already admitted that he tricked a second woman into having a long-term relationship with him, as part of an intricate attempt to bolster his credibility as a committed campaigner.
I guess the statement is technically true in the sense that the group got infiltrated by the feds, that somehow led to the group being "dismantled", and because the infiltration involved getting the activists pregnant you could say that it was "dismantled by [...] getting suspects pregnant". However, it's massively misleading because reading it at face value makes me think the government was getting people pregnant with the explicit aim of preventing them from protesting (because they're too busy being pregnant). I'm not sure why you didn't go with went with that framing rather than a more reasonable one of "dismantled by Fed’s using obscene methods, like having children with activists to gain their trust".
