Really? If scrutiny is what caused the companies to implode, it seems like there's a strong argument to be made that the problem was the scrutiny.
You want to find problems that are problems whether you find them or not, not problems that are only problems because you called them "problems".
My post is specifically pointing out that the wording makes it sound like EY audited the companies and their findings are what caused the companies to implode, which is what the parent comment seemed to assume, but the article actually says that it was the fact that EY did not find problems during their audits, which were later found, causing companies to implode.
You don't think these might have caused problems for the company in the absence of external scrutiny?