CBSC620 Case 2

 

Toshiba Accounting Scandal

Toshiba Corporation, a Japanese electronics and engineering conglomerate with headquarters in Tokyo, produces a wide range of products, including personal computers, semiconductors, consumer electronics, household appliances, and nuclear power plant systems. The company also provides an array of services, such as those focused on information technology, communications, and nuclear reactor construction and operation.

In May 2015, Toshiba formed an outside panel to investigate potential accounting irregularities at the company. The formation of such an outside panel is an accepted procedure for companies in Japan, where corporate boards of directors are composed primarily of company executives, with few independent outside directors. An outside panel is typically formed to investigate matters that may involve improprieties by senior managers and executives.

Toshiba’s CEO, Hisao Tanaka, resigned in July 2015 when the investigation uncovered that he was aware that Toshiba profits had been overstated by a total of $1.2 billion over a seven-year time period. (Further investigation would determine that the amount of the overstatement was closer to $1.9 billion.) Two former CEOs who held membership on the company’s board of directors were also implicated in the investigation and stepped down. Six other members of the board also eventually resigned, and Toshiba announced it would appoint several new and independent directors to its board to strengthen external oversight of its management.

The investigatory panel found that “Toshiba had a corporate culture in which management decisions could not be challenged. … Employees were pressured into inappropriate accounting by postponing low reports or moving certain costs into later years.” Managers at Toshiba set such challenging profit targets that subordinates couldn’t meet them without exaggerating the financial results of individual business units. Furthermore, the head of the investigatory panel stated that the scope of their probe had been limited by company management. The investigation of Toshiba’s U.S. nuclear business, Westinghouse Electric Co., was initially declared off limits. Months after a review of that portion of the business was completed, Toshiba took a $2.5 billion write-down on its Westinghouse business.

Following the scandal, Toshiba was removed from the JPX Nikkei Index 400, the stock index that includes the top Japanese companies based on operating income, return on equity, and market value. The move dealt yet another blow to the company’s reputation—inclusion in the stock index matters because investors, including the world’s largest pension funds, use the stock gauge as a benchmark.

In the first quarter following the revelations of the accounting scandal, Toshiba’s sales fell to their lowest level in years, and the firm lost $102 million for the quarter. The price of Toshiba stock shares dropped precipitously, reaching a 36-year low in early 2016. For the quarter ended July 2016, Toshiba reported a slight drop in revenue but generated its first quarterly profit since the accounting scandal. Cost savings generated by the cutting of bonuses and laying off of employees helped boost profits.

The rise of third-party panels is a part of a larger move in Japan to improve corporate compliance following a number of scandals at companies such as IHI Corporation, Livedoor Company, Mitsubishi, Nikko Cordial Corporation, Olympus Corporation, and others. Under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the government, companies, and the stock exchanges have sought to encourage foreign investors with the promise of more corporate transparency.

There are, however, several issues with the use of third-party panels to investigate potential improprieties. For instance, it is the practice in Japan for the members of such a panel to accept the scope of the investigation as defined by the company board of directors. This means that the board can pressure the panel to stay clear of sensitive areas of the business. In addition, members of the panel are not directors of the company and so do not have a fiduciary duty to shareholders. (Company directors do have such a duty, which requires them to work to advance the interests of the company, keep corporate information confidential, not use their position to further their private interests, and inform themselves of all material reasonably available before making business decisions.) Furthermore, the panel members have no power to force managers to handover documents.

Toshiba is a 140-year-old company and one of Japan’s best-known brands. The magnitude of the scandal at the company caused Japan’s Finance Minister, Taro Aso, to comment that the irregularities were “woefully regrettable” and had dealt a blow to the country’s efforts to regain the confidence of global investors. Aso noted that if Japanese companies failed to implement appropriate corporate governance, they could lose the market’s trust.

  • Open a new Microsoft® Word document and answer the Critical Thinking Questions below.
  • Save the file on your computer with your last name in the file name. (Example: case_1-1 _Jones.doc)
  • Click the Choose File button to find and select your saved document.

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Observers have commented that a scandal of this magnitude, occurring over such a long period of time, must involve collaboration among a large number of managers—reaching from the lowest level to the highest level of an organization. Should investigation of the scandal at Toshiba continue until all involved parties are outed and punished? What are the pros and cons of such an action??

2. Do you think that the practice of appointing outside panels to perform investigations should continue, or can you develop a better solution to enforce corporate compliance with laws and generally accepted accounting principles?

3. Japan is generally considered to be struggling in areas such as transparency and board independence compared to the global standard. What measures do you think should be considered at the national level to improve transparency and gain the trust of foreign investors?

3 topics

Assignment Content

  1. In class, we learned how to write the introduction and conclusion of the Literature Review section, which includes:
    • Introduction (6 sentences on p. 10a)
    • Review of Literature (using notes on p. 13a – ONE objective summary is graded already — apply feedback)
    • Analysis of Literature (compare and contrast activity on p. 16a)
    • For this submission: You will submit your full draft of the Literature Review in a WORD document.
    •  YOU MUST CHECK YOUR SIMILARITY prior to submission here. 
    • Grading: 
    • Title Page = 10 pts
    • Literature Review: Intro, Review of Literature, and Analysis of Literature WITH in-text citations and correct level headings:
    • Introduction = 15 pts
    • Review of Literature = 40 pts
    • Analysis of Literature = 20 pts
    • References page with ALL four research articles listed = 15 pts
Write a program that allows users to perform maintenance for a given set of names. When the load button is pressed, read a se

Write a program that allows users to perform maintenance for a given set of names. When the load button is pressed, read a set of names, preferably 10 or less from an initialized array. Display the area into the comboBox or listBox. The add button allo

 Write a program that allows users to perform maintenance for a given set  of names. When the load button is pressed, read a set of names,  preferably 10 or less from an initialized array. Display the area into  the comboBox or listBox. The add button allows the user to add to the  existing list. Remove will delete a name from the list. Allow the user  to highlight or select one or more names from the listbox. When the user  presses the select button display a dialog box| indicating the names  selected. The reset button restores the listbox from the original array.  The exit button terminates the button. …Form1 OX Name Maintenance  Program Name Load Add Remove Select Reset Exit 

 Write a program that allows users to perform maintenance for a given set of names. When the load button is pressed, read a sePlease write GUI program with java. thank you.  

Final Project

Topic:  Physical Protection for Database 

Your Research Project is due this week. It must consist of:

1. 5 source annotated bibliography

2. slide presentation with 12 or more slides

3. Summary or Abstract containing at least 750 words.

The topic must be appropriate for graduate level. Find a topic that we covered in the course and dig deeper or find something that will help you in your work or in a subject area of interest related to the course topic. Use academically appropriate resources .  Use the Research Databases available from the Danforth Library, not Google

4-6 Pages IP

 

Bayesian analysis requires the inclusion of prior information. It is also computationally intense. There are many examples that can be provided from any fields. After completing the required readings for the week and conducting any additional research that you may need, write a 4–6 page paper that addresses the following:

  • Discuss the reasons for using Bayesian analysis when faced with uncertainty in making decisions.
  • Describe any assumptions of Bayesian analysis.
  • Describe the situations that would call for Bayesian analysis.
  • Describe any problems with Bayesian analysis.
  • Describe the contexts for Bayesian analysis.
  • How is decision making under uncertainty related to Bayesian analysis?

Be substantive and clear, and use scholarly examples to reinforce your ideas.

Culminating AssignmentConcept Paper: Red Team Assessment Strategies in

 Culminating AssignmentConcept Paper:   Red Team Assessment Strategies in CybersecurityDirections:1.  Read the scenario, access the resources, and review the rubric below to help you understand the assignment.  The final paper will be due in Week 7.  You should begin working on the assignment right away, and you will share your progress in Week 6.  2.  Write a paper that follows the listed parameters, addresses the important concepts, and includes the required sections:Parameters: 

  • Ranges from 4 – 5 double-spaced pages and use IEEE formatting style. 
  • Uses Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides.
  • Includes at least three (3) quality resources to support your ideas.  You may use the resources provided and/or others of your choosing.  They must be cited appropriately.

Important Concepts:

  • Compare and contrast red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.
  • Describe the approach to red team assessment.
  • Discuss how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.

Required Sections:

  • Title 
  • Introduction:  Clear description of the topic, including a summary of what is already known about that topic.
  • Body: 
    • Address important concepts.  
    • What evidence do you have to support your topic?  
  • Conclusion:  Why is it important to study this topic? Why is this worth investigating further?
  • Reference Page:  IEEE style  

3.  Your paper should enable a casual reader to understand this topic and its importance.  Please make sure the following outcomes are addressed within your paper:

  • Explain the common tools and tactics used in red teaming.
  • Use technology and information resources to research the evolution of red team assessment techniques.

Due:  In week 7 with the specific date posted in Blackboard.  You will be directed to complete and share parts of this assignment in Week 6.  Scenario:  A large multinational fintech wanted to conduct a Red Team Assessment to evaluate its ability to detect and respond to a real-world cybersecurity attack.The read team started their assessment by sending a phishing email that persuaded the victim to log in to a fake portal hosted on a server to obtain valid credentials. While a small number of users clicked on the malicious link sent in the email, none of them submitted their credentials. This could be attributed to the regular social engineering tests and security awareness training delivered to staff.After the failed phishing campaign, the team went back to the drawing board to come up with a new plan of attack.  Reviewing the company’s Twitter account, the team discovered that they host a monthly community event at one of their buildings. The team registered for the event to deploy a purpose-built device into their internal network. The device will allow the team to gain remote access to the network using either an independent wireless connection or a 3G/4G mobile connection.Two members of the red team attended the event. They managed to slip away from the main event to see if there were any unlocked offices or conference rooms. Once a room had been found. One team member acted as a lookout while the other plugged the device and checked that he could reach it from his mobile phone. Shortly afterward the testers left the event and joined the rest of the team in a coffee shop down the road.  Once connected to the network, the team started mapping the internal network and gathering additional information. Over the next couple of days, the team captured several password hashes, which were achieved by exploiting a weakness in Windows’ broadcast protocols. However, users appeared to be using strong complex passwords and it was not possible to crack the hashes to recover clear-text passwords. The team then decided to relay a captured hash belonging to a user and use it to log in into a workstation where they had local administrative privileges. This allowed them to extract the clear-text password of the currently logged-in users from memory.Resources to help you complete this assignment:

Rubric:Points: Assignment: Red Team Assessment Strategies in CybersecurityCriteriaNeeds ImprovementBelow 60-70 FFair70-79 CProficient80-89 BExemplary90-100 A1. Compare and contrast red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case. Met outcomes.Weight: 25%Did not submit or incompletely compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.  Did not meet outcomes.Partially compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.  Partially met outcomes.Satisfactorily compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case.  Met outcomes.Thoroughly compared and contrasted red teaming versus penetration testing based on the presented case. Exceeded outcomes.2. Describe the approach to red team assessment.Weight: 30%Did not submit or incompletely described the approach to red team assessment.Partially described the approach to red team assessment.Satisfactorily described the approach to red team assessment.Thoroughly described the approach to red team assessment.3. Discuss how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Weight: 30%Did not submit or incompletely discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Partially discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Satisfactorily discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.Thoroughly discussed how different types of organizations are utilizing red teaming.5. 3 ReferencesWeight: 5%No references were provided.Does not meet the required number of references; some or all references poor quality choices.Meets the number of required references; all references high-quality choices.Exceeds the number of required references; all references high-quality choices.6. Clarity, writing mechanics,  formatting.Weight: 10%More than 6 errors present5-6 errors present3-4 errors present0-2 errors present