Tunku Puteri Intan Safinaz School of Accountancy

Semester 1 2017/2018 (Session A171)

BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Group D

Comprehensive Case 2:
Sime Darby Berhad (2010)

Prepared For:
Dr. Nor Asma Bt. Lode

Prepared By:

Chan Wen Sien 232164

Muhammad Firdaus Bin Zainudin 233523
Teoh Jing Min 237912
Tan Sin Yan 238954

Date of Submission:
14th December 2017
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Table of Content

Background of Sime Darby Berhad................................................................................................1

The main issues of Sime Darby Berhad..........................................................................................3
The main players of Sime Darby Berhad........................................................................................6
The specific accounting manipulations involved in Sime Darby Berhad........................................8
The person or party that disclosed the scandal of Sime Darby Berhad.........................................11
The penalties of Sime Darby Berhad............................................................................................13
The suggestions or recommendations to avoid such scandal in future..........................................14
References....................................................................................................................................16
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Background of Sime Darby Berhad

Sime Darby Berhad is a major Malaysia-based multinational conglomerate involved in 5

core sectors: plantations, property, industrial, motors and logistics. Sime Darby Berhad is a

global trading and logistics player and partners with some of the world’s best brands to deliver

quality products and services to its customers. Its core businesses operate in and serve as well as

the healthcare, insurance and retail segments. Sime Darby is listed on the Main Board of Bursa

Malaysia Securities Berhad. It has vested interests and close relationships with the Malaysian

government and assisted them by buying the management of the Sarawak Land Development

Board (SLDB) which made loss in 1987. Sime Darby turned the financial situation and sold it to

government owned Sarawak Plantation Services.

In January 2007, the "three Malaysian giants": Sime Darby, Guthrie and Golden Hope

merged into the vehicle entity named Synergy Drive and on 27 November 2007, Synergy Drive

was renamed Sime Darby Berhad. Therefore, the modern Sime Darby Berhad corporation was

created.

Sime, Darby and Co. Limited

Sime, Darby and Co. was established by two British businessmen William Sime and

Henry Darby in October 1910, a fledgling player in the lucrative rubber industry. The company

later diversified to cultivating palm oil and cocoa and met with enormous success. In 1977, Sime

Darby Holdings was acquired by Malaysian investors which mainly through Tradewinds

(Malaysia) Sendirian Berhad. In December 1979, Sime Darby moved its headquarters to Kuala

Lumpur and became a Malaysian registered and managed concern with the incorporation of two

new Malaysian entities, Sime Darby Berhad (SDB) and Consolidated Plantations Berhad (CPB).
1
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Guthrie

Guthrie was the first British trading company in South East Asia which was founded by

Alexander Guthrie in Singapore in 1821. In 1896 and 1924, Guthrie introduced rubber and oil

palm in Malaysia. However, in 1987, Guthrie Group was made a public company and was

subsequently listed on the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE) in 1989 in what was then the

largest public issue in Malaysia.

Golden Hope

Golden Hope Rubber Estate is formed in 1905 by Harrisons and Crosfield, a British tea

and coffee trading company, by which the company purchased several small estates in Malaysia

for £50,000 and amalgamated them. In 1982, Harrisons and Crosfield sold three large plantation

groups which are Golden Hope, Pataling, and London Asiatic to Malaysian concerns for £146

million. In 1990, the business was renamed Golden Hope Plantations Berhad after Pemodalan

Nasional Berhad (PNB, the national capitalization agency) took majority equity of the company.

The company has diversified into other areas including glycerine manufacture, fruit juices and

real estate as plantations have remained a core business interest. The group now has 83

subsidiaries based in seven countries. The main estate and plantations are Carey Island and

Banting in Selangor.

Sime Darby had a land bank of 850,000 hectares in 2011. The largest stakeholder was the

Malaysian government-linked company Amanah Saham, followed by the government's

Employees Provident Fund and the government-run PNB. CEO of the firm was Datuk Mohd

Bakke Saleh, who was also the CEO of Bank Islam, another government-linked company, in

2010.

2
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

The main issues of Sime Darby Berhad

Sime Darby Berhad (2010) is the company that we choose as the topic of our

comprehensive case study 2. In the year 2010, there is the main issue which is the major

corporate accounting scandal occurred in the world leading listed plantation company, Sime

Darby Berhad. Sime Darby falls under the aspect of financial fiasco.

Sime Darby Berhad had become a center of controversy for the public in May 2010 due

to a project cost overrun scandal involving malpractices. The company suffered massive cost

overruns to the tune of RM2.1 billion, then the market was shocked as Sime Darby Berhad has

been a huge multinational conglomerate involved in five main sectors with a total annual

turnover of about RM33 billion. It has seriously affected the confidence of investors in the stock

market and supervision of the authorities. In addition, Sime Darby Berhad also announced that

its share price plunged to RM 7.47 on 27 May 2010, a 10-month low.

Sime Darby Berhad announced that its earnings may be cut by up to RM964 million due

to losses in its Energy & Utilities Division, from cost overruns in four projects. The cost

overruns in four projects including the Bakun Hydroelectric dam project, the Qatar Petroleum

project, the Maersk Oil Qatar project and the Marine Project which involved the construction

of marine vessels. Of the RM964 million, RM200 million was due to a reversal of revenue

recognized in the 2009 Sime Darby’s financial statements for the Qatar Petroleum project which

had already incurred losses exceeding RM500 million, RM159 million was due to the Maersk

Oil Qatar project which had already recorded a loss of RM367 million in the first half of the

fiscal year, RM450 million was due to the Bakun Hydroelectric dam project, and RM155 million

was due to losses from the construction of some vessels in the Marine Project.

3
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

The Malaysia-China Hydro JV consortium, led by Sime Engineering, was given a

contract to construct the Bakun Hydroelectric dam in September 2002. The purpose of the

project is for the construction of an undersea high voltage direct current (HVDC) cable was also

initiated for the dam to relay power to Peninsular Malaysia. Although the project was scheduled

for completion in the third quarter of 2007, delays in the impoundment, as well as changes to the

plans and disagreements over the cost of the dam, caused a significant setback to the date of

completion.

The management of Sime Engineering decided to bid for engineering, procurement,

construction, installation, and commissioning (EPCIC) contract, commissioned by Qatar

Petroleum AS for its Bulhanine Project towards the end of 2005. It was the first time that Sime

Engineering had attempted to undertake a project of such scale and magnitude. The project

required substantial Transportation and Installation (T&I) work, which Sime Engineering neither

had the expertise nor the resources to handle the project. Hence, the company decided to invite

tenders from T&I subcontractors. However, only one T&I subcontractor offered to carry out the

full scope of work for the T&I project and the contractor was rejected by Qatar Petroleum due to

political implications. Qatar Petroleum gave Sime Engineering time to source for new

subcontractors and issued the letter of acceptance to Sime Engineering for the project in April

2006.

A month later, Sime Engineering submitted a bid for another EPCIC project,

commissioned by Maersk Oil Qatar AS and Qatar Petroleum. The similarity to the EPCIC

works that they had just signed with Qatar Petroleum, Sime Engineering had very little know-

how or the resources to deal with the colossal Maersk Oil Qatar project. Nonetheless, Maersk Oil

4
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Qatar awarded the project to Sime Engineering in February 2007, with completion scheduled for

October 2009.

The first keystone in the plan was for Sime Marine, a subsidiary of Sime Energy &

Utilities, to construct or acquire several vessels to allow for T&I capabilities within the division.

Management proposed building the vessels as that would entail 27.5 percent lower cost

compared to buying the vessels at market price. On the flip side, the time taken to build the

vessels would span a number of years while the immediate purchase of the vessels would enable

Sime Marine to provide Sime Engineering with the T&I capabilities required for the Maersk Oil

Qatar Project.

Overall, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) has identified Sime Darby

Berhad’s corporate accounting scandal consisted the elements of corruption, misappropriation,

and abuse of power; because it is not only involved a lot of money but also the interests of the

people.

5
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

The main players of Sime Darby Berhad

There are few main players involved in the corporate accounting scandal in the world

largest listed plantation company based in Malaysia, Sime Darby Berhad. These players have

directly involved in projects cost overruns scandal and forced the Sime Darby Berhad into a

financial fiasco.

The management team of Sime Darby Berhad, led by Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir

Murshid who formerly held the position of Chief Executive Officer of the company involved in

the cost overruns in four projects. In December 2010, the group filed a civil suit against its

former CEO and four executives in relation to the cost overruns, seeking damages and relief

totaling at least RM340 million over three loss-making projects. The projects were the Qatar

Petroleum project, the Maersk Oil Qatar project and the Project Marine, which involved the

construction of marine vessels. The four executives in the civil suit were Datuk Mohamad

Shukri Baharom (former executive vice-president of the group's Energy & Utilities division),

Abdul Rahim Ismail (former chief financial officer of the group’s Energy & Utilities division),

Abdul Kadir Alias (former head of the oil & gas business unit of the Energy & Utilities

division), and Mohd Zaki bin Othman (former senior general manager of Sime Darby

Engineering).

In addition, Sime Darby also filed another civil suit against Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir

Murshid, and two other executives, for damages of at least RM92.2million for breach of trust

and fiduciary duty in the Bakun Hydroelectric Dam project in Sarawak. The other two

defendants are the former head of the group's Energy & Utilities division, Datuk Mohamad

Shukri Baharom and former Energy & Utilities division chief financial officer, Abdul Rahim

Ismail.

6
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

On the other hand, in response to the civil suit filed by Sime Darby Berhad, Datuk Seri

Ahmad Zubir Murshid served third-party notices to 22 other directors on the ground because

they had breached their duty as directors to exercise due skill, diligence, and care and that the

other directors should be held responsible as they were the highest and ultimate in decision

making authority. The 22 directors including Tun Musa Hitam, Tun Ahmad Sarji Abdul

Hamid, Tan Sri Ahmad Tajuddin Ali and Datuk Seri Andrew Sheng. Zubir claimed

“selective prosecution” of the defendants for a collateral purpose and abuse of process, without

regard of the “collective responsibility” of the main board in Sime Darby's losses.

Above are the main players that involved directly in the corporate accounting scandals

and caused the Sime Darby Berhad suffered a huge loss in term of financial. Most of the players

are holding a high position in the company which has the high authority to make any decision.

7
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

The specific accounting manipulations involved in Sime Darby Berhad

Before answering this question, the definition of accounting manipulations is

“Creative accounting is the transformation of financial accounting figures from what is

actually preparers’ desire, by taking advantage of existing rules and/or ignoring some or all

of them”. Naser (1993:2) one of the early researchers who defined the account manipulation was

Copeland (1968) that defined it as “some ability to increase or decrease reported net income

at will”. Stolowy and Breton (2000), argues it is a wider concept also including balance sheet

transactions. [ CITATION Jon14 \l 17417 ]

As forensic audit report that released after civil action taken by the company for the huge

losses and financial scandal, Tun Musa Hitam, chairman of Sime Darby, mentioned that unable

table such forensic audit report public due to the process of law to protect the interest of best

interest of the Group. [ CITATION Din10 \l 17417 ] Therefore, the financial information for Sime

Darby’s scandal is limited.

We identify how the provision of losses amount been incurred for these four

projects[ CITATION RHB10 \l 17417 ]:

i. Qatar Petroleum

This project worth RM 974 million which awarded in April 2006 has been completed and

handed on with losses exceeding RM 500 million. The revenue of RM 200 million which

previously recognized in Financial Year 2009 will reversal from the account in the year 2010.

8
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

ii. Maersk Oil Qatar (MOQ)

This project worth RM 2.2 billion was completed in Feb 2010 which delayed periods of 5

months to complete. Total cost overruns and delay costs of this project incurred was RM 526

million. Since, RM 367 million already recognized in the interim financial year 2010, therefore,

RM 159 million still needs to recognize as the provision of losses in financial report year 2010.

iii. Marine

Total of provision losses amount been recognized was RM 155 million, which is the cost of two

tugboats, and a Derrick lay barge been used in MOQ. As vessels for Marine have not been

delivered, these vessels used to MOQ project and incurred repaired and upgraded cost after used.

iv. Bakun Dam

Additional provision will be RM 450 million for this project and provision amount based on

cost-to-completion. Total cost overruns at RM 1.7 billion which almost same size as Sime

Darby’s actual Bakun contract of RM 1.8 billion. However, the government agreed to reimburse

around RM 700 million to Sime Darby and leaving the group with around RM 1 billion to deal

with. [ CITATION Lim10 \l 17417 ]

Total huge provision amount in the year 2010 as below:

Number Project Provision (RM million)

1 Qatar Petroleum 200
2 Maersk Oil Qatar (MOQ) 159
3 Marine 155
4 Bakun Dam 450
Total 964
In August 2008, Sime Darby’s internal auditor issued a report on losses in the Oil

and Gas Segment of Energy & Utilities (E & U) division. Sime Darby’s Chief Financial

9
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Officer, Tang Poh Keow and external auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, required higher

provision for losses to reflect in accounts, but the management in Sime Darby refused and

explained that the losses could be recovered. Therefore, external auditor delayed signing off the

audited accounts of the division for the year 2008. However, there is total RM 964 million losses

as mentioned just now in the year 2010. In August 2009, after internal auditor issued second

report concerns about E & U division, new workgroup formed and asked the president, Datuk

Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid to take a leave of absence. [ CITATION Mak12 \l 17417 ]

In concluding, we unable identify whether Sime Darby has involved in accounting

manipulation because forensic audit report that is not disclosed to the public by Sime Darby,

plus, an annual report that not much disclose for the accounting manipulation. Therefore, Sime

Darby’s financial scandal is more to the mismanagement of the board previously and lack of

accountability to the stakeholder. This because management makes a contract for the projects

that not beneficial to the company and not disclose the provision of losses to the public after

advice by a chief financial officer and external auditor in the year 2008.

The person or party that disclosed the scandal of Sime Darby Berhad

As we know Sime Darby Berhad had become a centre of controversy for public in May

2010 due to a project cost overrun scandal involving malpractices. Then As a mention before,

this project which is four projects including the Bakun Hydroelectric dam project, the Qatar

10
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Petroleum project, the Maersk Oil Qatar project and the Marine Project which involved the

construction of marine vessels already make Sime Darby Berhad incurred losses around

1500milion.

Due to that case there are few main players involved in the corporate accounting scandal

in the world largest listed plantation company based in Malaysia, Sime Darby Berhad. These

players were directly involved in projects cost overruns scandal and forced the Sime Darby

Berhad into financial fiasco. The situation began to unfold when Sime Darby’s internal auditor

issued a report on losses in the Oil and Gas Segment (O&G) of the E&U division, which was

then brought to the attention of the Audit Committee at the board level.

Next, they continue the investigation when internal auditor issued a second report that

voiced grave concerns about the E&U division, a work group was set up to review the operations

of the division. In May 2010, Sime Darby Berhad called a special board meeting to review the

findings of the work group.

After that, result of board meeting board decides to ask Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid

to take a leave of absence. Then, Sime Darby Berhad called a news conference, two weeks

before the scheduled announcement of its second quarter results, to announce the losses and

Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid’s leave of absence.

After that announcement, Sime Darby Berhad makes a future investigation due to that

case. Then Sime Darby called in KPMG and Deloitte to conduct forensic audits in June 2010.

After settled the investigation, in November 2010 forensic audits revealed breaches of duties and

misconduct within the E&U division. In December 2010 it was announced that the Malaysian

11
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

Anti-Corruption Commission had found several “elements of fraud” in Sime Darby and had

shared its findings with police and the Companies Commission for them to initiate action.

The penalties of Sime Darby Berhad

Refer to the part of main players of Sime Darby Berhad in this case the management team

of Sime Darby Berhad, led by Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid who formerly holds the position

12
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

of Chief Executive Officer and four executives of the company involved in the cost overruns in

four projects. First penalties that Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid faces is when meeting board

decide to ask Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid to take a leave of absence.

Next, due to criminal breach of trust (CBT) that made by Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir

Murshid and four executives (Datuk Mohamad Shukri Baharom, Abdul Rahim Ismail, Abdul

Kadir Alias and Mohd Zaki bin Othman) Sime Darby Bhd has filed civil suits against them

seeking damages and reliefs totaling at least RM340mil over three loss-making energy projects

which is Qatar Petroleum project, the Maersk Oil Qatar project and the Project Marine.

The damages sought included US$30.81 million for consultancy fees wrongly paid in the

MOQ Project or around RM95.9mil, RM80.51million for consultancy fees wrongly paid in the

QP Project and US$48 (RM149.5mil) million from Datuk Seri Ahmad Zubir Murshid and Datuk

Mohamad Shukri Baharom for breach of trust and fiduciary duty in the Bakun Hydroelectric

Dam project in Sarawak and losses arising from the failure to deliver the three marine vessels.

13
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

The suggestions or recommendations to avoid such scandal in future

As what discussed previously, we know that Sime Darby’s financial scandal due to bad

corporate governance with terrible management and board oversight. The management

team in Sime Darby lack of accountability, because the denial of losses even though informed by

external auditors; lack of transparency, because of failure to disclose overrun costs; lack of

responsibility because of poor business decision making; lack of fiduciary, because there are

high possibility graft and abuse of power or position. Cause of those problems is lack of effective

and efficient of corporate governance. The suggestion to avoid such bad corporate governance is

Minority Shareholders Watchdog Group (MSWG) be given board representation

especially for a company like Sime Darby which is Government Linked Companies (GLC).

MSGW is an investor advocate set up in the year 2000. Since, 2009, it produced the Malaysian

Corporate Governance Report (GCR), an annual ‘scorecard’ that assess the ranks the

corporate governance of all listed companies based on publicly available data. This is to

ensure a level of playing field for stakeholders who participate in companies to enjoy wealth

maximization. [ CITATION Pra12 \l 17417 ]

Besides the President and Group Chief Executive of Sime Darby, Datuk Ahmad Zubir

Murshid been requested to leave for his position, others management just receive civil suit. This

is because Board Sime Darby not discloses the provision of losses although advice from the

auditor and make a contract that lacks expertise and resource. My suggestion is keeping the

management team in check and let them hire another subcontractor to carry out the

project work effectively and finish it in the given time frame. [ CITATION Als10 \l 17417 ]

Cost overrun and delay in these 4 projects is extremely high. Therefore, we give

suggestion on how to avoid cost overrun for Sime Darby. First, Sime Darby should pay

14
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

attention to project planning, think of all major scenarios and flesh out the complete scope of

the project. Secondly, check a vendor’s capabilities before hiring. Since, Sime Darby has

subcontract their project to outside vendors, therefore, find out vendor teams’ capabilities and

check if they match requirement and check how good they sticking to deadlines in their previous

project. Third, attempt to stay within the scope than originally planned. It needs high

monitoring and controlling from management in Sime Darby. Fourth, use good scheduling tools

and charts, for example, Gantt chart to reduce wrong cost estimations. Fifth, make sure

stakeholders in the project are on the same page. Effective communication help reduces

delays and making the schedule work better by communicating effectively. Last, constantly

track and measure the progress because there a most early signal for project delays and it give

opportunities to fix the issue before boil over. [ CITATION Bal12 \l 17417 ]

There is some party that suspects that the board of the group might corruption for vendor

subcontract. Therefore, there might agency problem in this Sime Darby scandal which

management team focuses their self-interest. To encourage manager act in shareholders’ interest,

there is few recommendation: (1) performance-based incentives, (2) direct intervention by

shareholders, (3) the threat of firing, (4) the threat of takeover.

15
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

References

Alsaqqaf, A. M. (2010). Sime Darby Case. Retrieved from Scribd Inc.:

https://www.scribd.com/document/249122667/Assignment-2

Charles, L. (2012, July 16). Ex-Sime Darby CEO arrested for CBT involving RM80mil.
Retrieved from The Star Online:
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2012/07/16/exsime-darby-ceo-arrested-for-cbt-
involving-rm80mil/

CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE SIME DARBY BERHAD FINANCE ESSAY. (2015,

November 27). Retrieved from Essays.pw: https://essays.pw/essay/conflict-of-interest-in-
the-sime-darby-berhad-finance-essay-146359

Dinobeano. (2010, November 16). Sime Darby Group AGM: The Board Faced Irate
Shareholders with Calm and Composure. Retrieved from WordPress.com:
https://dinmerican.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/22023/

Goan, L. S. (2010, November 18). Sime Darby's scandal. Retrieved from Mysinchew:
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/48199

Hamdan, N. (2010, December 24). Sime Darby sues ex-CEO, two executives again, for
RM92.2mil over Bakun project. Retrieved from The Star Online:
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2010/12/24/sime-darby-sues-exceo-two-
executives-again-for-rm922mil-over-bakun-project/

Jonada MAMO, A. A. (2014). ACCOUNTING MANIPULATION AND ITS EFFECTS IN THE

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ALBANIAN ENTITIES. Interdisplinary Journal of
Research and Development “Alexander Moisiu“ University, Durrës, Albania Vol (I),
No.2, 55-60.

Mak Yuen Teen, Associate Professor of Accounting NUS Business School , National University
of Singapore. (2012, April). Corporate Governance Case Studies. Retrieved from CPA:
https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/documents/Corporate-governance-case-studies.pdf

News Ex-Sime Darby president acquitted. (2016, Sept 6). Retrieved from The Star Online:
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/09/06/exsime-darby-president-acquitted-
ahmad-zubair-found-not-guilty-of-criminal-breach-of-trust-
charges/#t5TjcECqUTA1UVCr.99

Prashanth Beleya, G. R. (April 2012). Independent Directors and Stakeholders Protection: A

Case of Sime Darby . International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences Vol. 2, No. 4 ISSN: 2222-6990 , 422-434.

16
 BKAR3053 Financial Accounting and Reporting V

RHB Research. (2010, May 14). Sime Darby Eroding Investor Confidence. Retrieved from
SCRIBD: https://www.scribd.com/document/31338031/Sime-Darby-Berhad-Eroding-
Investor-Confidence-14-05-2010

Seng JC L.S. (2012). News Sime Darby Bhd & Ors v Dato' Seri Ahmad Zubair @ Ahmad Zubir
bin Hj Murshid & Ors (Tun Musa Hitam & Ors, third parties. Malayan Law Journal, Vol.
9, pp.466-509.

Siang, L. K. (2010). Najib should not dodge questions but should answer frankly whether the
Bakun Dam project has cost overruns of RM1.7 billion and that the government will be
asking Parliament for a RM700 million bailout package for Sime Darby. Retrieved from
WordPress: https://blog.limkitsiang.com/2010/05/22/najib-should-not-dodge-questions-
but-should-answer-frankly-whether-the-bakun-dam-project-has-cost-overruns-of-rm1-7-
billion-and-that-the-government-will-be-asking-parliament-for-a-rm700-million-bailou/

Sime Darby. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sime_Darby

Sime Darby Berhad. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.simedarby.com/

Sime Darby sues ex-CEO and 4 executives. (2010, Dec 23). Retrieved from The Star Online:
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2010/12/23/sime-darby-sues-exceo-and-4-
executives/

Teen, M. Y. (2012, April). The Sime Darby Financial Fiasco. Retrieved from Corporate
Governance Case Studies: http://governanceforstakeholders.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/04/Corporate-governance-case-studies.pdf

Viswanathan, B. (2012, June 6). 6 Ways to Prevent Cost Overruns. Retrieved from project-
management.com: https://project-management.com/6-ways-to-prevent-cost-overruns/

17