Suppose that Cornelius believes that Elliot is not a good hire for Pharma. Can he fire Elliot? Although Adams may have had the legal right to hire Elliot without the consent of the others, it was a morally wrong decision not to seek the consent of the other shareholding partners. As a privately held corporation which is small in size, the promotion of business efficiency is an objective best served by enabling the owners to arrange the organization of the enterprise as they choose unless such decisions are outside the scope of the partnership business which would make it impossible to
5. The confidentiality agreement did limit the scope of the audit performed on ZZZZ Best. It is the job of the auditor to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence. When Ernst & Whinney were not allowed to follow-up with anyone involved in the restoration process that limited their ability to gather evidence. The company should have been able to follow up with all venders and customers to attest to the validity of the financial statements and they were not able to do this and not able to gather the “appropriate and sufficient evidence” needed.
Executive Summary Kenneth Jones, the president of Viscotech, has a handful of regulatory issues to resolve before moving any further with operations. Ideally, the company would have considered SEC regulations before raising the $976,000 in December 1997 from 34 investors through the MIFT pool. Most importantly, Viscotech was desperate for money, so they did not notify the SEC, and accepted money for securities offered under Regulation A, which had not been finalized by the SEC staff. Viscotech advertised the MIFT as a trust, when it appears to be a contract to buy securities at a future date, but we argue that the security vehicle is exempt under Regulation A (see Exhibit 1) for the following reasons. Under the Securities Act of 1933, the MIFT does not automatically fall into the category of exempt securities, so the company must still file a offering statement with the SEC to avoid penalties.
Contrary to the District’s contention, the record also does not show that the Association indicated that it could not beat the savings under a subcontract. In support of its contention, the District submits that the Association’s chief negotiator (Mr. Kurtz) admitted to the District’s business administrator (Mr. Richards) that the Association could not meet the terms of the subcontract and that the Association did not request further negotiations after the District declared an impasse. According to Mr. Richards, however, Mr. Kurtz said, “Yes, the numbers, they’re showing a savings for the District” (N.T. 145), which is hardly an indication that the Association could not beat the savings under the subcontract. Mr. Richards also testified that Mr. Kurtz “didn’t feel that the Association could, in fact, come up with that type of savings, but the negotiations still had to move forward.” Id.
This was the first audit that ZZZZ Best had as a public company and the mistake involved the inspection of the insurance restoration sites. Mr. Greenspan had talked with Tom Padgett, and even though Mr. Padgett confirmed the insurance contracts were real and showed proper documents to back them up, Mr. Greenspan never actually inspected any of the actual insurance restoration sites. Had the sites been checked, Mr. Greenspan could have stopped the scam from ever hurting the public stockholders. After looking at this mistake, Greenspan should have made it a very high priority to inspect the insurance sites, especially because they amounted for such a huge percentage of income for ZZZZ Best. The second mistake involved Ernst & Whinney, which was the auditor for ZZZZ Best after Greenspan was let go.
The internal auditors questioned why the two shipments were done before December 31, since the requested dates were in the following year. The shipments had a total value of $150,000.00. Another concern for the internal auditors was that there was no written agreement with United Thermostatic Controls to accept the early shipments and pay for them before they actually needed the merchandise. The internal auditors also discovered that Frank Campbell put pressure on the accountants to record the shipments to show the sales. Their concerns were discussed with
He didn’t think he needed to ask Express the moral problem so that everyone will believe that his or her moral concerns have been recognized and included. * This is a moral problem because his actions of using company funds for personal use wasn’t economically efficient productive system, it didn’t produce more of the products that people most want an less use of the resources people least value, which is a definite value to society. In addition to this, his actions wasn’t informed to everyone. * Effective use of resources, What are the economic benefits? * What are the legal requirements?
Auditors should not require their clients to accept and correct all the adjustments. In the audit process, auditors are easily to hold different opinions with management over financial statements; especially over the accounts require personal judgments. But auditors are not always right, and their clients may disagree with the misstatements detected by auditors. According to AU §312.43, after timely communication between auditors and management, management has the right to disagree with the audit adjustment. Also, in Auditing Standard No.14 of PCAOB, it says the communication just gives the management an opportunity to correct misstatements.
Furthermore, his calculation of full unit cost, which only added up material cost and direct labor cost, is not that convincing. Probably the manager of the company would also take the other costs such as state tax and inspection cost into consideration when evaluating the whole project. Thus, the result of the inventory holding cost using the formula H=iC could not have the accurate number for the estimation. 3. The relationship Lynn Rosen was talking about was the relationship between customer-service level and inventory investment.
In this situation, the company failed to report the write-off of uncollectible receivables and ignored discounts on outstanding receivables for large customers who were struggling to sell Leslie Fay’s products. With regards to the inventory account, Leslie Fay had been known within the industry to be behind the times with the latest fashion. Because of this, it would be reasonable to expect the company to report significant write-offs of inventory for items they were not able to sell, however, the inventory account actually increased over the examined time period. Accounts