Bất lực với chuyện “ăn không nói có” trên báo cáo tài chính

-----

1. This case involves a massive financial fraud by defendant Peregrine Systems, Inc., a publicly traded (niêm yết) San Diego-based software company. The purpose of the fraud was to inflate (thổi phồng) Peregrine's revenue (doanh thu) and stock price (giá cổ phiếu). To achieve its unlawful purpose (mục đích bất hợp pháp), Peregrine filed materially incorrect (không chính xác) financial statements (báo cáo tài chính) with the Commission for 11 consecutive quarters (11 quý liên tiếp) between April 1, 1999, and December 31, 2001. The fraud was uncovered in April 2002, and in February 2003, Peregrine restated (trình bày lại) its financial results (kết quả tài chính) for its fiscal years (năm tài khóa) 2000 and 2001, and for the first three quarters of fiscal 2002. Peregrine reduced previously reported revenue of $1.34 billion by $509 million, of which at least $259 million was reversed (đảo ngược) because the underlying transactions (giao dịch) lacked substance.

2. Through the actions of certain of its officers and employees, Peregrine engaged in deceptive practices to artificially inflate its revenue. The heart of the fraud was the recording of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue despite non-binding arrangements with customers, in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Among other things, material sale contingencies were secretly added by oral or written side agreement to what appeared on their face to be binding contracts.

3. Peregrine then took fraudulent action to conceal the revenue fraud through the actions of certain of its officers and employees. When Peregrine booked the non-binding contracts, and the customers predictably did not pay, the receivables ballooned on Peregrine's balance sheet. To make it appear that Peregrine was collecting its receivables more quickly than it actually was, a senior officer entered into financing arrangements with banks to exchange receivables for cash. Peregrine improperly accounted for these financing arrangements as sales of the receivables and removed them from the company's balance sheet. There were several problems with this. First, because Peregrine had given the banks recourse, and frequently paid or repurchased unpaid receivables from them, Peregrine should have accounted for the financing arrangements as loans and left the receivables on its balance sheet. Second, some of the "sold" receivables were not valid because the customers were not obligated to pay Peregrine. Third, several of the "sold" invoices were fake. One of the fake invoices purported to reflect a $19.58 million sale. Senior employees also concealed the revenue fraud and resulting collection problem by improperly writing off receivables.

4. By engaging in the acts alleged in this Complaint, Peregrine violated the antifraud, books and records, internal accounting controls, and reporting provisions of the federal securities laws.