Reference no: EM133061309
Handling Deduction Issues. Task 1: Case Analysis.
When Remington Arms Company hired credit manager Vicki C. Sharp, unauthorized deductions were a serious problem especially by the big chain stores that demand total adherence to their rules. Through a variety of techniques, she effectively eliminated 90% of the problem. The unauthorized deductions were averaging 150 days past due and were out of hand. The function was handled in Delaware and the people at that location knew they were losing their jobs. Whether it was the knowledge of their impending job loss or that they lacked the expertise to handle the job is not clear. They simply had no incentive to resolve the deductions. Sharp says she started from scratch, bringing the operation to North Carolina. She hired new people and trained them. The number of claims that had not been researched was high. The company also brought in temporary workers to try to get the workload under control. They even brought in a third-party firm that specializes in collection of unauthorized deductions for about six months. However, the company's long-term goal was to have their own people handle the work. Sharp does not intend to let the problem get out of hand again. She says the best defense is to be a good detective and do it the way the chain stores demand. This means that as soon as she receives a check with a deduction, she goes into action. The item is immediately researched and a determination is made to see if the company complied with the customer's guidelines. If Remington is in the right, she immediately drafts a denial letter and backs it up with all the documentation. This includes a copy of the customer's check. This gives them everything they need. With this approach, Remington generally gets 90% of its claims paid back. Occasionally, even after providing all this documentation, the customer still does not repay the deduction. If the dollars warrant it, Sharp visits the customer, bringing along all the unpaid claims with the documentation. She sits and visits with them and reviews the material. Typically, she only has to do this once and then has a friend for life. Afterward, if she has another problem with that company, she always calls the person she visited with-even if they no longer have responsibility for the deductions. She recommends that credit professionals be good and timely detectives. Research the deduction immediately and get rid of it. If another department is responsible, work with that department. When dealing with the chains, this can mean getting shipping to move a label from the right side of the box to the left. She says that occasionally other departments cannot change the way they are handling the issue. Then she sits down with the chain and tries to negotiate with the chain over the issue. Sometimes she gets a deviation and sometimes she doesn't-but she always tries.
TASK 1.
1. What is the introduction in the given case.
2. What is the background
3. Evaluation of the case
4. Proposed Solution
5. Recommendation
TASK 2. ANSWER THE QUESTION
QUESTION:
1. Explain why unauthorized deductions have been an issue.
2. Explain how to prevent unauthorized deductions.
3. Relay the lesson from preventing unauthorized deductions in real life as of today during the time of Covid - 19 Pandemic.
Lesson 9 - Legal Considerations Surrounding Credit
Task 1: Case Analysis.
Because of the size of credit demanded by a smaller mid-size customer, the credit manager required quarterly financial statements from the customer's accounting firm. He noted that the company, which was 100% owned by a husband and wife, had a slowly dwindling cash position. When asked about it, the couple said it was a result of normal business conditions. Eventually, payments stopped, leaving the supplier with several hundred thousand dollars outstanding. The account was then turned over to a collection agency. Since the vendor in question was the customer's main supplier and it had stopped shipping, the business was winding down and the agency was not able to collect. The account was then turned over to a lawyer who sued the customer. The vendor won a judgment in court but at that point there was nothing left to collect. At this point, the company was able to subpoena bank records, which showed a series of checks written to the couple and deposited in their personal accounts. They had slowly and systematically drained the assets from the company. Whether this was their intent when they started the business or not, the result was the same as a bust-out. They had siphoned off all the assets from the company. Now a less conscientious credit manager might have written this account off to bad debt but not this one. His collection agency thought that the principles might have assets. Despite the fact that the vendor had not gotten a personal guarantee, the vendor went after the husband and wife personally in court. He was able to do this because the couple owned 100% of the company. The paper trail led back to the company. A background search turned up personal assets. For example, a local title search uncovered the fact that the couple owned property while a lien search uncovered no mortgage. They owned their home free and clear.
QUESTION:
1. What is the introduction in the given case.
2. What is the background
3. Evaluation of the case
4. Proposed Solution
5. Recommendation