SEC Case Study: Internal Control Failures at Provectus & Magnum Hunter

This case study examines the financial misconduct and internal control failures at Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. and Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation. Provectus's CEO and CFO were involved in fraudulent expense reimbursements and unauthorized use of company funds, facilitated by insufficient internal controls and inaccurate financial reporting. Magnum Hunter faced challenges in timely financial statement preparation and reporting due to staffing issues and errors in consolidation and balance sheets. The study highlights the roles of the CEO, CFO, and auditors in both companies, emphasizing the importance of robust internal controls, accurate financial reporting, and adherence to auditing standards. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated cease-and-desist proceedings against both companies, underscoring the consequences of financial irregularities and non-compliance. This analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the issues, their impact, and the regulatory actions taken.

FACTS OF PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, INC
Respondent Provectus Biopharmaceuticals Inc was incorporated
in Delaware and is an entity situated in Knoxville, Tennessee.The
stock of the company is registered with the commission in
accordance to the section 12(g) of the Exchange Act.The Chief
Executive Officer of the entity and the co founder of the Provectus
was H.Craig Dees .The Chief Financial Officer of the entity was
Peter Culpepper.
The entity paid its Chief Executive Officer H.Craig Dees around
$3.2 million as an advance for business travel expenses .The
entity CEO fraudulently claimed all the re imbursement of
expenses and travel expenses and used them for personal
purpose. The expense report submitted by the entity CEO was
also very limited in details and with no support to the relevant
documentation. The entity also paid to its Chief Financial Officer
Peter Culpepper $199,194 as a part of business travel expenses
and perquisites. The same amount was used for the personal
purpose .The internal control of the entity was not sufficient to
detect and analyze those fraudulent transactions and recording of
these transactions was not properly done in the company books
of accounts. The annual reports of the entity does not provide the
accurate details of the records and understated the travel
expenses paid to the CEO and CFO of the entity in the form of
personal expenses. The annual reports of the company also
stated that the internal control of the company was sound enough
to detect any fraudulent activity of the company, when it was not.

FACTS OF MAGNUM HUNTER RESOURCES CORPORATION
Magnum Hunter Resources is a Delaware corporation with it’s
headquarter in Irving, Texas.The main business of the entity is the
production of oil and exploration of oil and gas in the United
States. The stock of the company is registered with the
commission in accordance to the section 12(b) of the Exchange
Act.The company grew in size and the employees and manpower
of the entity fallen short which resulted in the non completion of
task on a timely basis. The audit team lead by Joseph Allred
conducted the audit and issued a report to the entity managers
and the Audit Committee. The report submitted by Allred
identified the reasons and the problem faced by the accounting
department team and the reporting team experiencing difficulties
in the preparation of the financial statements and reports. The
reasons for the non-completion of the financial statements of the
entity on timely basis as planned.
The report of Allred also stated about the mismatch of the two
balance sheets for the month ending October 2011 and about the
consolidation of the financial statement of the company had not
formally presented. The CEO and CFO both relied on the matter
presented by Allred without knowing the actual error prevailing in
the financial statement of the company .Neither CEO and the CFO
of the entity prepared any alternative evidence to augment the
document prepared by Allred. Gray who failed to provide the
external audit service to the entity and failed to conduct the audit
as per the auditing standards and he also approved the auditor’s
report by expressing the unqualified opinion in his report.