Shambra Products Case Summary

Findings discovered on March 3rd 1982 during discussions with USSC executives should have been analysed more closely. Even though the results likely would have been similar with the case Lacey Manufacturing Company, it would have been good to aim at arranging similar visit also to other companies supplying “tooling services” and compare answers. Also, as in this case it appears USSC executives have information superiority against auditors, it would have been good to appoint external expert in field of manufacturing to provide his opinion, if “tooling services” really had been supplied. Even though the business is new, e.g. a general machine shop expert could have been contributed. Further analytical work also could have been done – even though based on P&L easy answers were not available (e.g. net sales/cost of goods sold had been rather stable and hence does not refer to huge capitalization of production costs). Also, it might have been good idea to consult USSC Board of Directors on corporate governance and internal controls, especially considering the situation of the company and obvious incentives to inflate earnings (need to raise capital to finance growth and development investments). This would have been especially important, if Hope had suspected fraud.

From year-end 2004 through the first-quarter 2008, defendant Brian Fox misled the investing public by fraudulently inflating the revenue and assets and fraudulently omitting major liabilities, of Powder River Petroleum International, Inc. (“Powder River” or the “company”) in the company’s Commission filings, and by making other false and misleading public disclosures. From year-end 2004, Powder River conveyed working interests in oil and gas leases to investors in Asia for over $43 million. Because Powder River promised full repayment of the working interest

Our project team analyzed the Fraud and Illegal Acts Case (True blood Case Studies- Case 08-9), which involves a questionable sales transaction made between Jersey Johnnie’s Surfboard, an SEC registrant, and Mr. Sinaloa, an independent sales representative of the company. As a simplified overview of the case, an external audit firm was hired on to perform a year-end audit of Jersey Johnnie’s Surfboards, Inc. Towards the end of the audit, the engagement partner notified the auditors that there could be a possibility of fraud and illegal acts made by the company.

At 14:32 Haring was arrested for OWI and fleeing the scene of an accident. He was taken away for booking and a Data Master Breathalyzer test.

Sofitec Computers (“Sofitec” or the “Company”) has engaged our firm to perform an audit of their financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2008. Our audit approach requires that we perform a risk based audit in which the amount of substantive testing (“work”) we perform is contingent on how effective the Company’s internal controls are, the risk of the environment the company is operating in, and the amount of risk the firm is willing to accept for issuing an improper audit opinion (i.e., Audit Risk Formula: Audit Risk = Control Risk x Inherent Risk x Detection Risk).

Every legislative session has hundreds of bills introduced in the Mississippi House and Senate, and although there are some bills with merit, there are many others that are pointless, clueless, frivolous, and even retaliatory. Such a bill is Senate Bill 2006, which seems to be a direct assault on the Mississippi High School Activities Association (MHSAA). To some people that may not be such a big deal, but after reviewing Senator Tommy Gollott’s bill, his bill comes across as little more than another legislative power play.

CCIB received a SOC 341 via email stating that facility staff reported to RP, patient Effie had no injury as of 0400 hours (4 AM). RP reported Effie was found after fall with urine soaked clothes and large bruising. In addition, the report states that Effie also had dried blood/scars in the head and a large bruise on left elbow all which were not from 10 min prior. RP reported that staff from the home stated that Effie fell on 5/2/2017 and that they called the paramedics (no detail). RP reported that Effie disclosed to RP in private that she fell the day before (5/1/2017). RP reported that Effie was taken to Kiser in Santa Rosa to receive medical attention on 5/2/2017.

Hobby Lobby Stores is a chain arts and crafts store around the nation. The owners, which is the Green Family, based a lot the their business and primary rules of their Christian faith. They have filed a court case to not provide birth contraception for their employee’s benefits for health. They feel birth contraception is unmoral and goes against their religion, which is what bases their crafts store. The Greens sued Kathleen Sebelius, who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, on September 12, 2012 for the requirements of providing birth contraception. The court allowed their request of not providing this benefit to Hobby Lobby’s employees.

For this assignment, I was assigned to investigate the goodwill and intangible assets of Telstra Corporation Limited in their 2016 annual report. I managed this by researching on ASA 701 Key Audit Matters, KAM, in order to understand the concept of the accounting standard in terms of when, how and why it is communicated and the purpose of KAM in relation to enhancing audit quality before working on the assignment. For the assignment, I had to describe goodwill and intangible assets which are tied to the key audit matter disclosed by Ernst & Young. Afterwards, I have to address whether the management judgements of Telstra are aligned to KAM and if new information were provided in KAM that may raise concerns that is not disclosed or tested by

1. There are numerous differences between performing a review and actual audit on the financial statements, but the major one is that the review does not contemplate obtaining an understanding of internal control structure. Also, a review does not assess control risk, tests of accounting records and responses to inquiries by obtaining corroborating evidence through inspection, observation or any other audit procedure. It can point out significant matters of the financial statements but does not provide assurance of their accuracy. The issue with ZZZZ Best case is that the auditors review was not sufficient enough to review any misstatements on the financial statements. Ernst & Whinney never questioned the internal control, reviewed

This paper explores the ZZZZ Best Company which was begun by a 16 year old individual who was able to pull the wool over the eyes of many customers, investors and auditors. This paper will define the difference between review and audit when it comes to financial reports, comments on the procedures provided with regard to the management assertion of occurrence, verification of payments for jobs and how they can lead auditors to improper conclusion, the purpose of predecessor-successor auditor communications, as well as whom needs to initiate the communication and information that needs to be obtained. The paper also addresses the limitations of the confidentiality agreement and how and when

The auditing firm has been in engagement with the company throughout the period when the fraud was being committed. One of the common and clear indicators of possible fraud was the company’s cash flow statement. The company experienced positive growth in its profits from the year 1996 through to the year 1998. However, a close analysis of the cash flow statement shows that the company had experienced negative figures of cash flow from both operating and investing activities and positive cash flow from financing activities which would not sufficiently offset the negative cash flows from operating and investing. It is therefore evident

CEO John McDonough decided on making acquisition of Calphalon and Rubbermaid, which influent shareholders’ confidence.

Additional steps should have been taken by the auditors when they received the smudged fax copy printed on the Bank of America letterhead. As mentioned before, the evaluation of the evidence obtained is as important as requesting it. The firm did not confirm the forged documents with the bank; for this reason, the evidence remained unreliable and the forgery wasn’t revealed until later. Auditors should have been concerned with knowing where and whom the confirmation letters came from. Was the initial confirmation request mailed directly by Grant Thorton SpA or by Parmalat or was it obtained directly from the bank? Auditors should be aware that confirmations that are sent through fax are much less reliable than confirmations sent by mail. Their duty was to find out if the correct process was altered in any way.

Integrity might cause problems in this case as the main persons in this organization are family members and there are also family members with high functions in the bank and JRW Realty with which Prefab has close business relations. Moreover, the members of the audit and compensation committee are not all independent of the firm and therefore, the likelihood of fraud or material misstatements in the financial statements is quite high. The profitability of the engagement to the auditor should be considered as well. Due to the extensive investigation the auditor has to do, especially due to the relationships between the people at the top management and the independence of the audit and compensation committee, the profitability might be a concern. Furthermore, from the analysis of the business risks of accepting the audit it can be concluded that there are several severe problem areas in which fraud or material misstatements in the financial statements can take place. At the Prefab Sprout Company the risk of fraud or material misstatements is considered to be very high and therefore, the engagement should not be accepted.