Complaint against NutraCea

Jan 25, 2011

On January 13, 2011 Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against NutraCea, an Arizona based health foods manufacturer and seller, alleging the company of falsification of its financial statements.

The complaint states that the company overstated its revenues in 2007 by booking invalid sales and engaging in improper revenue recognition practices. Two key cases highlighted in the complaint are – false booking of sales of $2.6 million by NutraCea to Bi- Coastal Pharmaceutical Corp and improperly recording revenue on bill and hold transactions – $1.9 million sale of product to ITV Global, Inc. (“ITV”) in the fourth quarter of 2007.

As a result of these two transactions alone, NutraCea overstated its product sales revenue by 36.8% and misstated its operating loss by nearly 7% for fiscal year end 2007.

Enhanced by Zemanta

PCOAB and POB join hands

Jan 13, 2011

With the recent Dodd Frank law amending the accounting rules to permit exchange of information with overseas regulators, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCOAB) and its British counterpart Professional Oversight Board (POB) have signed an agreement to cooperate in the oversight of auditors and public accounting firms in either jurisdiction.The six largest global accountancy firms – BDO, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton, KPMG and PwC have also welcomed this co-operative agreement.

The agreement provides a basis for the resumption of PCAOB inspections of registered accounting firms that are located in the U.K. and that audit, or participate in audits, of companies whose securities trade in U.S. markets. The PCAOB previously conducted inspections in the United Kingdom with the POB from 2005 to 2008, but has been blocked from doing so since that time.

The agreement could open the door for the PCAOB to look into Ernst & Young UK’s role in the accounting fraud involving the removal of billions of dollars of fixed income securities from the Lehman Brothers balance sheet to deceive investors about the bank’s liquidity; the Repo 105 scandal.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sri Lanka getting ready to adopt IFRS

Jan 10, 2011

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka (ICASL) plans to adopt new accounting guidelines for Sri Lankan companies in line with International Financial Accounting Standards starting 2012.

The Central Bank of Sri Lanka, in its Road Map Monetary and Financial Sector Policies for 2011 and beyond report released in January 2011 has included the initial steps to facilitate the adoption of  international standards. The reports states that changes would take place to Sri Lanka Accounting Standards (SLAS) 44 and 45 on financial instruments corresponding with International Accounting Standards of 32 and 39. Already work is under way to implement these changes starting from January 2012.

IFRS can soon add another country to its list of adopters.

Digimarc replaces its auditors

Jan 10, 2011

Digimarc Corp. , a technology firm that makes digital watermarks, has replaced its auditor, Grant Thornton. The reason, Digimarc and its auditors are unable to reach an agreement on how to account patent licencing revenue.

In October 2010, Digimarc licensed a substantial portion of its patent portfolio to Intellectual Ventures for a $36 million fee and 20 percent of future profits from the patents.

The company filed an 8K on December 27, 2010 in which it states that “during 2010, there was one disagreement with GT on a matter of accounting principles in which GT communicated that it disagreed with the Company’s proposed accounting treatment concerning revenue recognition related to the patent licensing arrangement entered into between the Company and IV Digital Multimedia Inventions, LLC, an affiliate of Intellectual Ventures (“IV”), on October 5, 2010. ” (as stated in the 8K)

The company has hired KPMG as its new auditor.

The Parmalat Scandal

Jan 7, 2011

Parmalat SpA, an Italian dairy and food company, declared bankruptcy in late 2003 primarily due to an accounting scandal worth 8 billion euro.

The saga began when Parmalat defaulted on a $185 million bond payment in mid-November 2003. This act made the auditors and banks look more closely at the company accounts. Some 38% of Parmalat’s assets were supposedly held in a $4.9 billion Bank of America account of a Cayman Island based subsidiary of Parmalat called Bonlat. But on Dec. 19, Bank of America reported that no such account existed! And so began the unfolding of the grand scam at Parmalat.

Auditors first inquired about the Cayman Islands account in December, 2002, and received a letter on Bank of America stationery in March, 2003, confirming the existence of the account. The letter was later found to be a well done forgery by someone in Parmalat’s Collecchio headquarters. Also under question was the 2003 buy back of $3.6 billion in outstanding bonds that Parmalat claims to have done, which from the records doesn’t seem to have actually taken place.

Then there was the issue of the company selling itself credit linked notes, in effect placing a bet on its own credit worthiness and in the process creating an asset on its books. A 1999 deal with Citi is a good example of such a transaction. The company did a deal with Citi where the bank made a $146 million “investment” in return for a chunk of the company’s net profit. By setting up the transaction as an investment and not a loan Parmalat made its borrowing costs appear smaller than they actually were and created an asset rather than liability.

The question is where did the billions go? Well the CEO Calisto Tanzi confessed to misappropriating close to a billion dollars and diverting the funds to cover losses in other family owned businesses. From one loss making entity to another loss maker; definitely not a good business move Mr Tanzi!

The final but critical question is who the auditors were and what is their reaction to the scandal? From 1990-99 the auditors were Grant Thornton International. In 1999, Parmalat was forced to change its auditor under Italian law, and it replaced Grant Thornton with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. However, Grant Thornton continued to audit Parmalat’s offshore entities. Neither firm uncovered what was years of accounting fraud. The auditor’s response to the scandal;  Grant Thornton called themselves the “VICTIM” of the deceit and Deloitte pointed out that they first raised the questions about Parmalat’s accounts on Oct. 31, 2002 (almost 3 years after they first became the auditors!). 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Civil complaint against Ernst & Young

Jan 6, 2011

A civil complaint was filed recently by Andrew Cuomo, the outgoing New York attorney general, accusing Ernst & Young of helping Lehman Brothers mislead investors. The state claims Lehman’s auditors aided in a fraud, using Repo 105 transactions to make the books look healthier than they actually were.

Ernst & Young obviously maintained that they did nothing wrong. Well technically they are right, they did comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, or GAAP.

The crux of the case should be the intent. Recently there has been news about various organizations being caught in accounting fraud, and in most cases the auditors had signed off on the financial statements. Should the auditors be responsible for just ensuring compliance with accounting rules or should they be held accountable to ensure that their clients’ intent is not to hide material facts.

This definitely is a case  accountants all over the world will keep a close eye on. This might define how accounting world would function in the future.

TUI says adieus to KPMG

Jan 3, 2011

TUI Travel, has decided to say adieus to their auditors KPMG. The move comes soon after the company had to take a write-down of £117 million, forcing the company to restate their 2009 results. The company has decided to go ahead and replace the outgoing auditors with PricewaterhouseCoopers.

TUI maintains that they have good working relationship with KPMG. KPMG on the other hand said that relations with some of TUI’s directors had become more strained after the incident. Definitely in this case TUI is not letting bygones be bygones.

Demand Media IPO on hold

Jan 3, 2011

Way back in August of 2010, Demand Media, an online content creator filed for an IPO in the hope of raising $125 million. But as of end of December, it was still answering questions from government agencies about their accounting practice, specifically around how they expense their costs of content.

Most media companies, online and off, immediately report the total costs of content creation. But Demand spreads the costs over five years, which leads to a higher net income or lower net loss for the company. Demand’s rationale is that the writers’ content will generate revenue for the company over multiple years, so it shouldn’t have to recognize the costs upfront. And so they spread the costs over a period of years.

DemandMedia is not the only party waiting to get a resolution; other online content creators are waiting too. If this accounting principle is accepted by the government agencies, then it might become a norm in the industry as this definitely boosts the bottom line for the companies.

Related Posts

Share This

Move to IFRS leads to losses for Power companies in India

Jan 3, 2011

The adoption of IFRS beginning April of 2011 will have a big impact on both the Income Statement and the Balance Sheet of power companies in India. Under the present Indian GAAP, rate regulated assets/ liabilities are allowed to be recognized, so companies have recognized as an asset or liability- tariffs, fuel adjustments and advances against depreciation.

With the adoption of IFRS, such assets or liabilities will have to be removed from the financial statements. In terms of numbers the initial impact on account of these regulatory assets under IFRS can be as high as Rs.745 crore in case of Tata Power and Rs.1,034 crore for Reliance Infra.

This issue is not centered only on India. This IFRS rule affects power companies worldwide. Just as an example the regulatory assets and liabilities for the electricity companies in the US is estimated to be $675 billion and $450 billion, respectively, in 2007.

For the convergence and standardization of the accounting standards, such anomalies will have to be taken into stride.

New rules for insider trading violations and audits of internal control

Dec 20, 2010

The SEC issued two rules in September 2010, in order to implement the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the Dodd-Frank Act). The rules affect the payment of bounties for revealing insider trading violations and requirements relating to audits of internal control over financial reporting.    

First, the SEC rescinded rules which authorized the payment of bounties for providing information leading to the recovery of civil penalties for insider trading violations, which were previously authorized by the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988. In its place, the Dodd-Frank Act established a broader program for monetarily awarding whistleblowers. The new program authorizes the SEC to award persons who provide “original information” that leads to the successful enforcement of certain judicial or administrative actions. Potential awards range from 10% to 30% of collected monetary sanctions. Unlike the former insider trading bounty program which authorized awards only for violations of insider trading laws, the new program authorizes awards for the violation of any federal securities law.

The SEC additionally amended certain rules to conform to the new Section 404(c) of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley), added by the Dodd-Frank Act, which exempts non-accelerated filers from having to include in their annual reports an independent auditor’s attestation report on internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, the SEC amended Item 308 of Regulation S-K to require filers to include in their annual reports the disclosure regarding this attestation report only if such an attestation report is actually included in the annual report. Rule 2-02(f) of Regulation S-X similarly clarifies that audit reports need not include an assessment of a non-accelerated filer’s internal control over financial reporting.