Note: The SEC filed the following lawsuit against Dean Buntrock, founder of Waste Management. The StopWMX campaign has written about cooked books and SEC previous action against WMI and Arthur Andersen. In addition the campaign, seeing WMI as the worst, has reported regarding pressures on the company for higher profits and the WMX response. Now the SEC has charged Buntrock and five other former executives with crimes. Buntrock has denied all the SEC allegations.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Dean L. Buntrock, Phillip B. Rooney, James E. Koenig, Thomas C. Hau, Herbert A. Getz, and Bruce D. Tobecksen
, Civil Action No. 02C 2180 (Judge Manning) (N.D. Ill. March 26, 2002)The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today filed a Complaint charging the founder and five other former top officers of Waste Management, Inc. ("Waste Management" or "Company") with perpetrating a massive financial fraud lasting more than five years. The Commission alleged that, beginning in 1992 and continuing into 1997, defendants engaged in a systematic scheme to falsify and misrepresent Waste Management's financial results and thereby enrich themselves and keep their jobs. The scheme was orchestrated and implemented by Waste Management's most senior officers:
The Commission brought its action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Complaint alleges that the defendants violated, and aided and abetted violations of, antifraud, reporting, and record-keeping provisions of the federal securities laws. As relief, the Commission seeks final judgments permanently enjoining defendants from further violations of these provisions, ordering disgorgement of defendants' ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment thereon, imposing civil money penalties, and prohibiting defendants from serving as officers or directors of public companies.
In its Complaint, the Commission alleges the following:
Defendants fraudulently manipulated the Company's financial results to meet predetermined earnings targets. The Company's revenues and profits were not growing fast enough to meet these targets, so defendants instead resorted to improperly eliminating and deferring current period expenses to inflate earnings. They employed a multitude of improper accounting practices to achieve this objective. Among other things, defendants
Return to Home Page
Return to News Page