While
conceding that, in the abstract, the fact that accrued liability balances in
Nortel’s balance sheet were restated is capable of supporting an inference
that, in their original form, the financial statements misrepresented the
company’s financial results, the court, based on the evidence , could not draw
such an inference in this case..
Nortel
reported its financial results in accordance with US GAAP and Canadian
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“Canadian GAAP”). The primary
financial statements were prepared in accordance with US GAAP.
In
the opinion, the court applied the definition of materiality such that misrepresented
financial results are material if, in light of the surrounding circumstances,
the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a
reasonable member of the investing public would have been changed or influenced
by the correction of the item. The omission of a financial result is
material if, in light of the surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the
item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable member of
the investing public would have been changed or influenced by the disclosure of
the item.
The
court also found that Nortel was a significant Deloitte & Touche client and
that Deloitte was embedded in one form or another in all aspects of Nortel’s
operations. The evidence is replete with communications between Nortel staff
and Deloitte staff. Many of the witnesses testified that, when Deloitte asked
for information, it was provided. This assertion is amply borne out by the
documentary record, said the court.
In 2007, the company settled
an SEC enforcement action alleging that it had engaged in accounting fraud to
close gaps between its true performance, its internal targets and Wall Street
expectations. Without admitting or denying the Commission's charges, the
company agreed to pay a $35 million civil penalty, which the Commission placed
in a Fair Fund for distribution to affected shareholders. The company also
agreed to report periodically to the SEC staff on its progress in implementing
remedial measures and resolving an outstanding material weakness over its
revenue recognition procedures. SEC v. Nortel Networks Corp., SD NY, Oct. 15,
2007, Civil Action No. 07-CV-8851 (S.D.N.Y.), Oct 15, 2007.