A divorcing couple has a premarital agreement, so everything is simple when it comes to dividing assets and paying maintenance, right? Of course not. Premarital agreements are rarely simple, and they become even more complicated when the language in the agreement is imprecise.
This high net worth divorce case study provides some important insights into the process of completing a lifestyle analysis and calculating support. In this case, an imprecise premarital agreement led to problems in analyzing the marital lifestyle, excluding certain questionable expenses, and calculating future needs.
Marital Standard of Living
Premarital agreements typically speak to the factors to be considered in calculating maintenance, including the length of the marriage, the method for calculating the spousal support, and the lifestyle or the marital standard of living of the couple and their children. Unfortunately, there are many situations that are never contemplated when premarital agreements are written, so they aren’t addressed in the agreements.
The most hotly contested area is the standard of living, as this item is often elusive and subjective. In our high net worth divorce case study, the parties’ premarital agreement provided that the recipient spouse was to receive spousal support for three years in an amount to support her in the standard of living enjoyed by the parties during the last three years of the marriage. Continue reading
Where can employees, outside consultants, and board members look for evidence of override of internal controls? This isn’t a simple list of numbers or documents that must be checked off. Instead, looking for improper override of controls requires looking for red flags that point to something being amiss.
- Complete an analytical review, looking for unusual changes between periods in terms of dollars and percentages.
- Look for large, round numbers that enhance the financial position, especially if these numbers just happen to occur at the end of an accounting period
- Examine reversing entries at the beginning of an accounting period, looking for evidence that these entries relate to an improper entry at the end of the previous period
- Determine whether transactions have been completed on an arms’ length basis, and with legitimate business partners
- Look for evidence of undisclosed relationships or agreements
- Listen carefully to employees who may be reporting wrongdoing or hinting that there is a problem
LuLaRoe leggings have become popular, and therefore the multi-level marketing (MLM) “business” of LuLaRoe has taken off. I’ve said over and over that multi-level marketing is not a business because more than 99% of participants lose money. But I wanted to take a look at this company specifically, because it’s been getting so much press.
Business Insider promoted the idea that LuLaRoe is making women rich. While there ARE a handful of women who are making a ton of money from the company, only an incredibly tiny fraction of participants can make this type of money. Why? Simple math. If you’re making a 3% to 5% commission on your downline (as you’ll see below), it takes $700,000 of wholesale purchases by your downline to earn $35,000 in a month. (I realize that various bonuses change the math, but I’m using these numbers to simplify things.)
Imagine how many people need to be in the downline and how much they each need to buy to generate this volume. Simple math tells you that everyone below the woman earning $35,000 can’t build a pyramid of this size. There simply aren’t enough people on the planet, and there are only so many customers available for each distributor.
Let’s talk about some of the specifics downfalls to this fake business. Continue reading
LuLaRoe is known for their patterned leggings, but the company sells a variety of casual clothing for women and children. In 2017, the company faced significant legal troubles including lots of unhappy consultants and multiple lawsuits alleging the company was a pyramid scheme. Read all about the LuLaRoe shenanigans here.
Winning a case against an auditing firm when there is a sizeable fraud (such as the Koss Corp. embezzlement) or the collapse of a Ponzi scheme (such as the Bernie Madoff case) is not easy. Simply because there is a fraud, a business failure, or a pyramid scheme collapse, the auditors are not necessarily at fault. The auditors may have carried out their professional responsibilities exactly as they should have, but they still did not uncover the fraud.
How does a fraud go undetected by auditors? The first thing to remember is that audits are not designed to find fraud, so they rarely do. Equally important, is the fact that frauds are deliberately (and often effectively) covered up by those perpetrating them. Particularly in the case of executives embezzling or perpetrating financial statement fraud, they are keenly aware of exactly how the auditors do their work, and take careful steps to avoid detection.
Technically speaking, auditors are not engaged to find fraud. They are engaged to give an opinion on the financial statements, and whether they are fairly stated. The auditors are required to perform certain procedures related to fraud, essentially assessing the risk of fraud and increasing the testing of the financial statements as there is a greater perceived risk of fraud. The auditors are not specifically engaged to (or expected to) find fraud, under the current auditing standards. Continue reading