On March 31, 1988, Coopers & Lybrand completed the "agreed-upon procedures" report on Symington's December 31, 1987, financial statement. Symington signed the report stating he was "responsible for the fair presentation in the statement of financial condition . . ."
Nine years later, on the last Friday in June, Symington's attorneys tried to change the story.
In a crisis, Symington loves to turn the tables on an opponent. He is used to shifting loyalties and doesn't flinch at attacking a former ally. Symington has built his political reputation on such tactics.
Which explains why he was so pleased with assistant defense attorney Terry Lynam's expert cross-examination of Wrigley.
Lynam mounted a three-pronged assault in what appeared to be a devastating attack against the prosecution.
First, Lynam sought to expand the role Coopers & Lybrand played in assisting Symington in preparation of his 1987, 1988 and 1989 financial statements.
Seizing on Wrigley's testimony that Yeoman made one correction on Symington's financial statements and that the value of Symington's stock was altered, Lynam made it seem that the entire Coopers & Lybrand tax department was combing Symington's financial statements.
But Lynam couldn't continue this line of questioning for too long, because another facet of Symington's defense got in the way. Symington has long conceded that "errors and omissions" appear in his financial statements--and that some of those are the result of shoddy advice.
After exaggerating Coopers & Lybrand's role in the AUP reports, Lynam switched gears and launched his second theme by attacking the firm for doing a lousy job on the reports.
Lynam pointed out mistakes Wrigley apparently had made on the AUPs. And Lynam blamed her for not telling Symington the "accounting principles" he was to follow in preparing his personal financial statement.
Lynam: "And, again, the accounting principles that you were referring to were not explained to Mr. Symington; is that right?"
Wrigley: "I don't believe we sat down and had a specific discussion."
But once again, Lynam moderated his assault--he could not beat up Coopers & Lybrand too badly, because the firm had to appear respectable for this third and final theme, which focused on the firm's more rigorous review of Symington's finances in 1991. After that examination, Coopers & Lybrand reported that Symington's net worth had fallen to a negative $23 million.
Symington clearly was in violation of Dai-Ichi Kangyo Bank's $4 million net-worth requirement for the Esplanade loans.
Neither Coopers & Lybrand nor Symington notified the bank of the violation. Wrigley testified that such notification is typically Symington's responsibility.
But Lynam exploited Coopers & Lybrand's knowledge of Dai-Ichi's net-worth requirement to drive home a point.
Coopers & Lybrand noted in its May 1991 report that Symington's negative net worth constituted a "technical default" on the Dai-Ichi loan. Coopers & Lybrand also noted that the default wasn't expected to cause Dai-Ichi to change the terms of the loan because Symington's other Japanese partner, Shimizu Land Corporation, was covering Symington's inability to pay his share of operating losses at the Esplanade.
In other words, Coopers & Lybrand didn't think it was a big deal that Symington was in default on the $4 million net-worth requirement and believed that Dai-Ichi Bank was probably aware of his financial problems.
Three of the 22 counts Symington faces stem from his submission of "materially false" requests for funds from Dai-Ichi while continuing to certify that he had a net worth of $4 million even though he knew he was in the red.
Now, Lynam had Symington's accountant testifying that Symington's default was a minor problem, a footnote in the firm's final report on Symington's May 1991 financial statement.
Lynam wrapped up his cross-examination of Wrigley as the court session drew to a close--leaving jurors with the weekend to ponder the points he'd raised.
Symington sprang from his chair, grinning.
"That was great," he told his defense team.
Lynam's cross-examination of Wrigley cuts to the core of the case.
Will the jury believe Lynam's contention that Coopers & Lybrand and the late John Yeoman did a thorough review of Symington's finances and failed in their duties to inform him of errors?
Or will the jury closely examine Symington's handwritten memos, in which he expresses fear of having his personal financial statement audited because more than half his net worth would vanish?
In the end, the question may be even simpler.
Does the jury believe Symington is an intelligent man capable of weaving a decadelong web of fraud, or will it accept the defense contention that he simply relied on others to monitor his finances, and that they failed him?
