Probe on ‘Big 2’ accouting firms: KPMG and Deloitte still on over 1MDB accounts

KPMG and Deloitte being investigated over 1MDB accounts

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA) is investigating KPMG and Deloitte, the two accounting firms involved in signing off the accounts of the controversial 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB).

The investigations are on whether the auditors in question who handled the accounts had breached the Accountants Act when signing off 1MDB’s accounts between 2009 and 2014.

The MIA has the power to regulate the accounting profession in Malaysia.

“There are complaints lodged against KPMG and Deloitte and we are investigating the auditors in question. The complaints are on the auditors and it is ongoing,” MIA’s chief executive officer Nurmazilah Mahzan told StarBiz in an interview.

Nurmazilah said it could not be determined at this stage when the investigations would be completed.

“The results of the investigations will be studied by a committee. The process is continuing but we have not got the final verdict yet. We cannot predict how long it will take at this point in time. If the auditors are found guilty or if there is a basis to these complaints then we have to wait for the judgement of the disciplinary committee,” she added.

MIA’s executive director for surveillance and enforcement Datuk Muhammad Redzuan Abdullah said the investigations were at the disciplinary committee level now and investigations had started since mid-2016.

The scandal-riddled 1MDB that had accumulated debts of RM42bil over the five years between 2009 and 2014, has had four auditors since its inception. They are Parker Randall, Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte.

1MDB appointed Ernst & Young as its auditor when it was set up in mid-2009. However Ernst & Young resigned in 2010 without signing off the accounts of the fund that was set up by the previous government headed by Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak.

KPMG stepped in to take over from Ernst & Young and signed off the accounts for the financial years ended March 31 in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The accounts were signed off without any qualification from the auditors.

Deloitte took over the auditing in December 2013 after 1MDB contended that KPMG could not “conclude” its 2013 accounts.

1MDB had also said in May 2015 that Deloitte had signed off 1MDB’s accounts for 2013 and 2014. When questions arose as to why KPMG could not conclude the accounts for 2013, 1MDB stated in 2015 that Deloitte had signed off the accounts without any qualification.

Nevertheless, resignations by Ernst & Young and KPMG as auditors then had raised questions over the fund. In the accounting world, a firm rarely leaves a job half-done, especially more so when it involves big and prominent clients such as 1MDB.

After KPMG left, 1MDB obtained an extension of six months to submit its accounts for end-March 2013.

It was reported then that KPMG had relinquished its role as auditor. Deloitte then came in and managed to close the books within the extended period of six months.

Earlier reports quoting sources said the primary reason why KPMG could not give an opinion on 1MDB’s accounts was because it was not able to make a fair assessment of the value of the assets backing the fund’s US$2.3bil investment placed with a Hong Kong-based asset management company.

Subsequently Deloitte managed to complete the books wherein the fair value of the investments was put at RM7.18bil based on the assessment done by a third party engaged by the fund administrator.

Recent reports said KPMG which had then signed off on three unqualified audit reports for 1MDB, had informed its board of directors that the audited financial statements did not reflect a true and fair view of the company.

It was also reported that Deloitte in 2016 also said its audit reports on 1MDB’s financial statements issued on March 28, 2014, and Nov 5, 2014, for the financial years ending 2013 and 2014 should no longer be relied upon.

Credit: Daniel Khoo The Staronline


Related:

MIA proposes increasing penalty by up to ten times

KPMG terminated as 1MDB auditors during March 2013 financial audit

Retaining talent despite shortage of accountants

Accounting body releases second edition of MPERS

1MDB scandal costs Malaysia RM50bil

Related posts:

Goldman Lunch at Taste Paradise Sets Table for 1MDB Money Probe

 

Najib is guilty of incompetence, he says: board to be blamed for 1MDB debacle, not me, I don't know !

 

Here is how 1MDB money was used to buy Equanimity

 

RM7bil to bail out 1MDB, CEO Arul Kanda utterly dishonest & untrustworthy said Finance Minister

 

1MDB business model relied on debt to form capital is not sustainable

 

Malaysia can’t extradite Jho Low, key people in 1MDB saga

 

Najib's US top lawyers, hiccup to choice of new AG as 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) probe widens

 

Malaysia's RM1.09 trillion debt, 80.3% of GDP demystified

 

New MACC chief breaks down in recounting what he went through (full story)

 

A-G should not lead both services, it's long overdue!

1MDB business model relied on debt to form capital is not sustainable

PETALING JAYA: 1MDB was unsustainable from the start, relying heavily on financial assistance to stay afloat.

The PAC observed that 1MDB’s capital financing structure and financial performance were both unsatisfactory.

“1MDB relied on debt (bank loans, bonds and sukuk) to form its capital, a chunk of which had been sanctioned or supported by the Government.

“Initially, the debt stood at RM5bil in 2009, and went up to RM42bil, compared to its assets of RM51bil in the financial year ending March 31, 2014, and it spent RM2.4bil to pay off interests.

“In January 2016, its debt was RM50bil, compared to its assets of RM53bil, where 1MDB spent RM3.3bil to pay off interests between April 1, 2013, and March 31, 2015,” said the report.

The PAC report also stated that 1MDB had paid RM3.3bil in interests on the loans it took from April 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, which 1MDB said had yet to be audited.

“It is obvious that the debt amount and repayment of interest are too high compared to the company’s cash flow,” said the committee.

1MDB had also heavily relied on the refinancing exercise to settle matured debts and take new loans, which were used to settle interests on previous loans, among others.

The PAC report also found that 1MDB began facing an imbalance in cash flow in November 2014, five years after it started operations.

“The management and board of directors relied on the Initial Public Offerings (IPO) of Edra Energy Berhad to generate funds, but the IPO could not be carried out,” said PAC.

In the same month that year, 1MDB announced its first loss of RM665mil, resulting in its inability to pay off its almost matu­ring debts which stood at RM2bil, through its refinancing exercise.

“The company’s business model is overly dependent on loans and this caused a burden on the company as it did not have enough income to sustain operational costs and pay off its loans,” read the report.

The PAC also said that as a state investment arm, 1MDB should have focused on best practices, and raised examples of weaknesses in its administration.

“For instance, the board of directors was too dependent and often accepted explanations by the management without delving into the details.

“Indeed 1MDB’s experience is a lesson to all government-linked corporations on the importance of effective administration and integrity,” said the committee. - The Star/ANN

Related:

‘Shahrol the man to blame’ 

1MDB to just repay debts, says Arul

Tun M: I was wrong because I named a smaller figure

Tan Seng Giaw: Najib not accountable over 1MDB dealings

Related posts:

 Malaysian citizens' declaration to oust Prime Minister

Mar 6, 2016 ... The signing of the Citizens' Declaration on Friday was hailed as a landmark re- alignment of forces in the country as it brought together the...

Malaysia's 1MDB's questionable accounts

1MDB probe gains momentum, a sensitive time for PM ...

Fighting corruption must be serious !

We must separate the roles of the Attorney-General as legal advisor to the Government and Public Prosecutor who prosecutes cases in court.

IT has become fashionable for critics to express dissatisfaction every time the Auditor-General presents his report to Parliament. So when the second report this year was tabled on June 15, the reaction was generally expected.

But the reaction from Public Accounts Committee (PAC) Chairman Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed is particularly important. Nur Jazlan, who is also Ideas’ Council member this time, says that he is disappointed with the performance of many Government agencies because they have failed to improve.

He also said that not long ago he praised Government officials for showing improvements every time the Auditor-General’s report is published. But he felt compelled to retract that praise because this time it was particularly bad.

He went on to say that many of the problems originate from the attitude of civil servants. Apparently the quality of our civil servants has deteriorated, and they don’t even bother to read the rules.

When the PAC Chairman makes such a bold statement, you know that there is something really wrong in the way civil servants manage our money. It is ironic that the Prime Minister recently announced a bonus for our civil servants despite such abysmal indictment.

Under Nur Jazlan, the PAC has been doing a much better job in identifying weaknesses in Government machinery and in demanding accountability. In fact, thanks to the PAC, the public now knows about the risk posed by Pembinaan PFI Sdn Bhd, a Government-linked company that has one of the biggest liabilities among Malaysia’s GLCs. The company has been off the audit radar for almost 10 years, despite the large amount of debt that it has accumulated.

The work of bodies like the PAC is important in our push for better governance in the country. The issues the PAC looks into are not necessarily about corruption.

Their responsibility is wider, covering also problems such as leakages and failure to adhere to published policies and procedures.

Fighting corruption, on the other hand, is more commonly associated with the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). I am still waiting to see if the MACC would act on a recent admission by Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi that a Special Branch report found that around 80% of our border enforcement officers are involved in corruption.

Nevertheless, I am very aware that even if the MACC were to start an investigation, that is only half of the journey. The other half lies outside of the MACC’s jurisdiction, and that is the prosecution of corruption cases.

Our system is designed in such a way that the MACC, just like the police, can only investigate and not prosecute. Prosecution is the sole discretion of the Attorney-General, who doubles up as our Public Prosecutor.

I have no problem with the MACC not having the power to prosecute. In fact, I think it is right to keep prosecutorial powers away from the investigation agency. Back in 2012, we at Ideas looked into this issue and compared the experience of Indonesia and Hong Kong in fighting corruption.

We published the findings in July 2012 and concluded that it really does not matter whether or not the MACC has prosecution power. Instead, what is most important is the integrity of the judiciary and the Attorney-General’s office.

Any effort to improve the quality of MACC, therefore, will have to be accompanied by reform in both the judiciary and the Attorney-General’s Office. Focusing on the MACC alone is not sufficient.

If we want to see a more effective fight against corruption we must separate the roles of the Attorney-General as legal advisor to the Government and Public Prosecutor who prosecutes cases in court.

Let me justify that with a simple analogy using the case of the allegedly corrupt border enforcement officers.

Let’s say the MACC do investigate the allegation and find that the problem runs all the way up to Ministerial level.

The MACC then passes the files to the Attorney-General. How much confidence do we have that the Attorney-General will prosecute his friends in Cabinet?

It is obvious that as legal advisor to the Government, he is conflicted. How can he prosecute the very party he is supposed to advise?

There are actually many more proposals to improve the MACC that deserve public attention. If you are interested in this topic, I suggest you search for reports published by the Special Committee on Corruption now chaired by Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang. This bipartisan committee, whose membership consists of members of the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, regularly comes up with some very good ideas.

One of those ideas is for the MACC to be given independence in recruiting their own officers. This suggestion has been mooted since 2010 and it makes a lot of sense. To be truly independent, MACC cannot continue to be dependent on seconded staff from the Public Service Commission, because this creates a conflict of loyalty.

But unfortunately, this idea has not received the attention that it deserves from the Government. There are times when I ask myself if our Ministers are really serious in the fight against corruption. For if they are really serious, why are they ignoring sensible ideas coming from a committee whose membership is from among their own colleagues?

Don’t they realise that the longer they choose to do nothing, the more people will feel that they have things to hide?


By Wan Saiful Wan Jan, thinking liberally The Star

Wan Saiful Wan Jan is chief executive of the Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (www.ideas.org.my). The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Related posts:

Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council or house-owners for the damages?... 

Who is responsible for slope management? Does the responsibility come with the property bought by the purchaser? THE collapse of a...

Building structural integrity & failure: problems, inspections, damages, defects, testing, diagnosis, repair

Structural integrity and failure is an aspect of engineering which deals with the ability of a structure to support a designed load (w... 

 

 Regulators act on complaints: MIA to name and shame errant professionals ... 

Malaysia's 1MDB's questionable accounts  

Malaysia's 1MDB's questionable accounts

Summary raises  questions over spending. It shows where money went but fails to debunk critics.

In acquiring assets of RM13.7 bil, it incurred RM5.4 bil in cost of financing working capital and foreign exchange cost  between 2010 & 2014 - Accountant.

PETALING JAYA: Controversial 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) has given a brief summary of how it has incurred a RM41.8bil debt bill in a space of five years.

While the explanation showed where the money raised has gone to, it did not debunk criticism on why a sum of RM15.4bil raised locally and some of it guaranteed by the Government, are placed with funds outside the country for purposes of investments and as security deposit for loans.

It also reveals a staggering RM4.5bil that 1MDB has incurred in financing and capital cost and RM900mil in foreign exchange cost, which accountants describe as a sizeable amount that needs to be explained further.

1MDB president and group executive director Arul Kanda Kandasamy said the clarification on the use of its RM42bil debt was necessary to address allegations that RM27bil was “lost” or “missing”.

“In recent weeks, there has been much speculation about the use of RM42bil of debt raised by 1MDB, and more specifically that RM27bil of the debt proceeds are allegedly “lost” or “missing”.

“We provide a summary of what the RM42bil debt has been used for, information that is fully disclosed in 1MDB’s audited and publicly available accounts from March 31, 2010 to March 31, 2014.

“We trust this clarification will help to clear any confusion on this matter,” he said in a statement.

One of the strongest critics of 1MDB is former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who has said that he could not account for some RM27bil of the RM42bil in debts carried by 1MDB.

In the summary, 1MDB for the first time revealed how much it has placed as investments with foreign funds and amounts deposited as security with Middle East funds for guarantees on loans.

The funds for investments are placed with Brazen Sky that has received RM6.1bil and GIL Funds that is holding RM5.1bil.

A sum of RM4.2bil has been placed with Aabar Investments Deposits as security for a US$3.5bil(RM12.9bil) bond issued by 1MDB in 2012. The bonds were issued when 1MDB acquired power plants from T. Ananda Krishnan’s Tanjong Group and the Genting Group in 2012.

The purchase of the power plants was the biggest item in 1MDB’s shopping list. However, the power plants came with a debt of RM6bil, which means 1MDB incurred a cash outlay of only RM12bil to buy the assets, although it lists RM18bil in its summary.

The next biggest item in the Finance Ministry-sponsored fund is a sum of RM1.7bil it paid to acquire three parcels of land – the Tun Razak Exchange and Bandar Malaysia in Kuala Lumpur and 234 acres (94.6ha) in Air Itam, Penang.

1MDB refuted allegations that the three parcels of land cost RM2.1bil, pointing out that the amount incurred was RM1.7bil.

The fund said it paid RM200mil for the TRX land and RM400mil for 495 acres (200ha) in Sungai Besi that is now known as Bandar Malaysia.

Both parcels of land are among the last pieces of large developments left in the city and had been the target of several prominent groups before it was given to 1MDB without any competitive tender.

Since 2011, 1MDB has re-valued the 72-acre (29ha) TRX development and the Bandar Malaysia parcel several times to reflect its soaring valuations.

The two developments now carry a combine value of RM4.3bil.

However, an accountant said the cost of financing and working capital incurred by 1MDB to acquire the assets and run its operations at RM4.5bil was on the high side.

“It raised debts to acquire power plants and three parcels of land. The other amounts raised were largely placed with fund managers as investments or as security deposits. Investments placed with fund managers should give returns and not incur financing cost.

“Similarly, the deposits should also give returns and not incur financing cost,” said the accountant.

The accountant pointed out that stripping out the investments placed with the funds outside Malaysia and the debt of RM6bil inherited when acquiring the power plants, the actual cash outlay 1MDB incurred in acquiring the power plants and three parcels of land was RM13.7bil.

“In acquiring assets of RM13.7bil, it incurred RM5.4bil in cost of financing, working capital and foreign exchange cost between 2010 and 2014.

“That needs further explanation. Without a breakdown in how much was the finance cost and working capital it is difficult to say whether the funds were well utilised,” said the accountant.

By M. Shanmugam The Star/Asia News Network

Related stories:

Husni: Written approval needed as PM represents Govt

Bank Negarabegins itsown probe

Rafizi pokes holes in fund’s debt summary

Stop spreading quit rumours, say ministers

Dr M: Ministers differ over 1MDB

Bank Negara probes 1MDB, no special exception for 1MDB

Related posts:

Regulators act on complaints: MIA to name and shame errant professionals

We have a due process to investigate any complaints made against any of our members,” MIA chief executive officer Ho Foong Moi (inset pic)...

 

Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council or house-owner for the damages? 
  Who is responsible for slope management? Does the responsibility come with the property bought by the purchaser? THE collapse of a...

Regulators act on complaints: MIA to name and shame errant professionals

We have a due process to investigate any complaints made against any of our members,” MIA chief executive officer Ho Foong Moi (inset pic) told StarBiz.

PETALING JAYA: The auditors who signed off on the controversial 1Malaysia Development Bhd (1MDB) accounts will be investigated by the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA).

Confirming this to StarBiz, MIA chief executive officer Ho Foong Moi said this was following complaints made by an Opposition Member of Parliament (MP).

DAP’s Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua had made two complaints to MIA, one in March and another in May.

“We have a due process to investigate any complaints made against any of our members,” Ho said.

MIA would not say when it aimed to complete the investigation. Ho said the deadline would depend on many factors as the case was complex.

“It also depends on whether we can obtain the relevant documents as well as prompt responses from the relevant parties,” she said.

On how impartial the probe would be, given that several council members of the MIA also work for three firms or the Accountant General’s office – who are involved with 1MDB – Ho said that any conflicted party would not be involved in the MIA investigation.

Three of the Big Four accounting firms were at one time or another working for 1MDB. The three are Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte. The Accountant General’s Department is an authority under the Finance Ministry and advises the minister on who to appoint to the MIA council. Nine out of the MIA’s 29 council members work for the three firms or the Accountant General’s office.

The RM42bil debt chalked up by 1MDB has been the interest of many, but this is the first time the MIA is stepping in.

There have been previous calls for it to check on the auditors. The chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which is holding an inquest into 1MDB, said he had found some accounting issues.

Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed said a few major accounting principles seemed to have been stretched to achieve the unqualified opinion in 1MDB’s 2014 accounts.

He called for regulators like the MIA and the Audit Oversight Board to step up and enforce the law. But the board has made it clear that it has control only over auditors of public listed companies.

The MIA, on the other hand, is a regulator for the accountants in Malaysia. The body has the power to investigate and punish members. It can even bar members from practising. But Ho stressed that the body can investigate only individuals, and not firms.

When the misconduct is less serious, the MIA can reprimand or fine the member. The MIA can also suspend a member for up to three years.

Move to name and shame errant auditors

PETALING JAYA: The regulator of audit firms in Malaysia has raised the issue of firms not fixing problems it had raised during inspections.

To put pressure on such firms, the Audit Oversight Board (AOB) will to make its inspection report public.

“We are concerned that audit firms may have started to be complacent with the deficiencies and issues raised in our inspection reports and have not given the required attention to the effectiveness of their remediation plans as indicated earlier to the board,” said executive chairman Nik Mohd Hasyudeen Yusoff in the AOB annual report 2014.

He noted that while firms have been enhancing their quality control, the board had found little actual improvement.

Last year, the board set stricter conditions for registration. It refused an application for recognition by a foreign audit firm because that firm failed to meet the board’s standards.

Also, the board acted against another firm for failing to meet critical measures on independence.

The board said new and revised standards next year would be a possible game changer to raise the quality of auditing and financial reporting in the country.

It was referring to the rules from the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board that take effect on Dec 15, 2016.

Nik said these new standards would require auditors to put in key audit matter disclosures in their reports.

This would make the reports tailored to the clients rather than the mostly standard terms and boilerplates.

The board expects this to give more insights “of the risks surrounding a particular reporting entity and some of this may have market impact”.

The annual report said there was no major change in the number of registered and recognised audit firms and individual auditors.

Six major audit firms and four others audited 957 public-interest entities (PIE), covering 98.6% of the market capitalisation of public listed companies in Malaysia in 2014.

Last year, the AOB acted against a firm and two individual auditors.

It was the first time it had barred a firm from accepting any PIE as a client for 12 months. The firm also had to pay a penalty of RM30,000. In the past, the penalties were limited to a reprimand and the highest fine was RM10,000.

Regulator AOB expects and has mechanism to ensure audit firms strictly adhere to the laws

PETALING JAYA: The Audit Oversight Board (AOB), which has taken enforcement actions against two individual auditors and an audit firm last year, expects audit firms to adhere strictly to the laws.

“AOB has in place a robust enforcement mechanism with sufficient safeguards to ensure that fairness and justice will prevail,” it said.

From April 2010 to December 2013, eight auditors were sanctioned for failure to comply with the recognised auditing standards in the performance of their audit of the financial statements of public-interest entities (PIE) and failure to comply with the ethical and professional standards of the Malaysian Institute of Accountants by-laws.

In 2014, action was taken against two auditors and one audit firm.

AOB has prohibited Wong Weng Foo & Co from accepting PIE clients for 12 months. The audit firm was also imposed a penalty of RM30,000.

The AOB has also rapped two registered auditors, Lim Kok Beng of Ong Boon Bah & Co and Chan Kee Hwa of Khoo Wong & Chan, for non-compliance.

They were reprimanded for not complying with the International Standards on Auditing while auditing the financial statements of public interest entities.

In addition to the reprimand, a penalty of RM10,000 was imposed on Lim

Salaries of audit firm employees higher than fees

PETALING JAYA: For the first time in two years, growth in employee costs has outstripped audit fees among Malaysian firms.

While the growth in audit fees has dipped by a quarter from 12% to 9% in the past year, the growth in staff cost has remained constant for the past two years.

There has been higher headcounts in the past year, which rose by 6.6%, according to the Securities Commission’s Audit Oversight Board’s (AOB) annual report 2014. “Based on three years of analysis of the top 10 audit firms, salary costs continue to increase at a higher rate compared with the growth in the audit fees, which is a challenge for audit firms,” the board said.

Staff turnover was also another concern.

While the overall turnover has stabilised at about a quarter of the staff each year, the non-executives were leaving at a higher rate.

“This is a concern as turnover at this level may indicate the lack of attractiveness of audit as a career among younger accountants, which could be detrimental in the long term,” it said.

The report is compiled from 10 top audit firms, which collectively audited 957 public-interest entities (PIEs) covering 98.6% of the market capitalisation of public-listed companies in Malaysia.

The number of registered audit firms had decreased from 83 in 2010 to 52 last year.

The number of registered auditors has remained stable for the past five years. The number of registered auditors rose to 304 individuals in 2014 from 302 in 2013.

The annual report, AOB’s fifth, was released yesterday. AOB also questioned audit deficiencies for major firms. AOB inspects accounting firms regularly to promote and develop an effective audit oversight framework and promote confidence in the quality and reliability of audited financial statements in Malaysia.

Sources: The Star/Asia News Network

Related:

 Board reminds audit firms of their duties

 Who can review the 1MDB audits?

Related posts:

Getting titles right in the engineering field in Malaysia

RECENTLY, the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM) received an enquiry on the usage of the title “Engr.” for members of the institution.  http://www.myiem.org.my/default.aspx?redirect=oldsite. The title “Ir” was first introduced ...

Lawyers who refused to return client RM4.9mil house sale ...

18 Apr 2015

Lawyers who refused to return client RM4.9mil house sale struck off rolls. Singapore's Supreme Court. Latest case is second instance of lawyers being disbarred in two weeks. SINGAPORE — Two senior lawyers were today ...


Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council or house-owner for the damages? 
  Who is responsible for slope management? Does the responsibility come with the property bought by the purchaser? THE collapse of a...

Reponsible housing developers' traits and qualiies expected
  
  House buyers, learn your rights
House buyers, learn your rights. I RECENTLY moved into our new house in Sungai Ramal Dalam. I bought the property back in 2012 and we received t 

Will Malaysian audit have its day in court?

Silver Bird may well be the first local listed company to sue its internal and external auditors.

IF ever there were Malaysian parents who had hoped that their kids would go into audit, there's probably quite a bit of serious rethinking going on right now. It looks like the audit profession is in for some harsh scrutiny and painful soul-searching.

On Aug 1, Silver Bird Group Bhd and two wholly-owned subsidiaries filed an action in the Kuala Lumpur High Court in relation to financial irregularities at the three companies. One of the 10 defendants named in the suit was Crowe Horwath, Silver Bird's longtime external auditors.

According to Silver Bird's announcement through Bursa Malaysia, the suit against the accounting firm is premised on alleged negligence and breach of duty of care and/or its duties and responsibilities to the plaintiffs as external auditors.

The bread and confectionery maker links this to Crowe Horwath's “failure to discover and/or detect the financial irregularities”.

It is believed to be the first such legal action by a listed company in Malaysia against its external auditors.

In recent years, it's increasingly common to hear of auditors in the United States, Britain and elsewhere (Japan, India and Hong Kong, for example) being sued for professional negligence because they had failed to spot fraud and warning signs of business collapses.

It's perhaps an indication of the current thinking that when companies go under, certain parties should be held accountable for the huge losses and suffering, and these include the auditors, whose opinion on the companies' financial statements are widely relied upon.

The day after Silver Bird initiated the civil suit, Crowe Horwath issued a press release to deny the allegations in the suit, as laid out in the Silver Bird announcement. The auditors pointed out that they had, in fact, discovered the irregularities and immediately reported these to Silver Bird's audit committee and board of directors.

“We believe that the suit by Silver Bird is frivolous in nature and without basis. We strongly believe that we have fully discharged our duties professionally and will vigorously defend our position in court,” added the firm.

Indeed, as that last line in the press release indicates, right or wrong will be decided before the judge, unless the case doesn't go to trial.

However, there were no such statements from Audex Governance Sdn Bhd and Focus Internal Audit Solutions (FIAS), who are also among the defendants. Both are on the list because they have done internal audit work for Silver Bird, which had outsourced its internal audit function to Audex Governance before switching to FIAS.

Suits against internal auditors appear to be rare overseas and it's almost certain that Silver Bird's civil action against Audex Governance and FIAS is a first for Malaysia.

The Silver Bird case has thrown the spotlight on the roles and responsibilities of internal auditors.

Internal audit became a more visible component of corporate governance in Malaysia when it was made mandatory beginning Jan 31, 2009, for a listed company to have an internal audit function.

Bursa Malaysia's listing rules require that the internal audit function be independent of the activities it audits and that it reports directly to the audit committee.

In addition, the listed company's annual report have to include a statement relating to the internal audit function, informing whether the function is performed in-house or is outsourced, and the costs incurred for the function in respect of the financial year.

Despite these rules, most people tend to underestimate the importance of internal auditors, probably because few people really appreciate what internal auditors do.

In a brochure, The International Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) reports this lament: “There is a universal lack of understanding of the internal audit profession, how it makes a difference in regard to organisational governance, risk, and internal control; and its value to stakeholders.”

In addition, there's more emphasis on the audit opinion of the external auditors as it's a tangible product of their work.

Also, the external auditors are seen as independent of the management, whereas an in-house internal audit function is undertaken by those on the company's payroll.

The IIA defines internal audit activity as a “department, division, team of consultants, or other practitioner(s) that provides independent, objective assurance and consulting services designed to add value and improve an organisation's operations”.

It adds: “The internal audit activity helps an organisation accomplish its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of governance, risk management and control processes.”

On the other hand, as Crowe Horwath puts it in Silver Bird's financial statements for the year ended October 2011, the external auditors are called in primarily to express an opinion on the financial statements “based on our audit in accordance with approved standards on auditing in Malaysia”.

Silver Bird's move to sue the internal auditors tells us that it's time to take a closer look at the internal audit function, whether in-house or outsourced. The regulators and the internal audit profession should be asking some tough questions.

Would it be possible for companies to sue internal auditors for professional negligence if they are employees? Who watches over the outsourcing of the internal audit function and the firms that take on such jobs? What more can be done to ensure the independence and quality of the internal audit function?

When financial irregularities are not picked up by the internal and external auditors, is it possible for one of the auditors to be exonerated while the other is found to be at fault?

The Silver Bird case may or may not lead to answers to these questions, but if the audit profession is truly proactive and dynamic, it wouldn't wait for the case to be resolved before responding to the reality that in Malaysia, resistance to the idea of suing auditors is waning.

> Executive editor Errol Oh hopes he will have the stamina and patience to follow closely the developments in the Silver Bird lawsuit.

Ernst & Young: Lehman accounting in accordance with US's GAAP

Auditors at Ernst & Young [ERNY.UL] are firing back at allegations that the "Big Four" auditor failed to detect accounting tricks at collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc

Following are excerpts from a letter sent by Ernst & Young partners to client audit committees in the past few days.
--------------------------------------------------------
The concept of an examiner's report is a feature of U.S. bankruptcy law. It does not represent the views of a court or a regulatory body, nor is the Report the result of a legal process. Instead, an examiner's report is intended to identify potential claims that, if pursued, may result in a recovery for the bankrupt company or its creditors.

EY is confident we will prevail should any of the potential claims identified against us be pursued.
We wanted to provide you with EY's perspective on some of the potential claims in the Examiner's Report. We also wanted to address certain media coverage and commentary on the Examiner's Report that has at times been inaccurate, if not misleading.

A few key points are set out below. General Comments:

-- EY's last audit was for the year ended November 30, 2007. Our opinion stated that Lehman's financial statements for 2007 were fairly presented in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and we remain of that view. We reviewed but did not audit the interim periods for Lehman's first and second quarters of fiscal 2008.

-- Lehman's bankruptcy was the result of a series of unprecedented adverse events in the financial markets. The months leading up to Lehman's bankruptcy were among the most turbulent periods in our economic history. Lehman's bankruptcy was caused by a collapse in its liquidity, which was in turn caused by declining asset values and loss of market confidence in Lehman. It was not caused by accounting issues or disclosure issues.

-- The Examiner identified no potential claims that the assets and liabilities reported on Lehman's financial statements (approximately $691 billion and $669 billion respectively, at November 30, 2007) were improperly valued or accounted for incorrectly.



Accounting and Disclosure Issues Relating to Repo 105 Transactions:

-- There has been significant media attention about potential claims identified by the Examiner related to what Lehman referred to as "Repo 105" transactions. What has not been reported in the media is that the Examiner did not challenge Lehman's accounting for its Repo 105 transactions.

-- As recognized by the Examiner, all investment banks used repo transactions extensively to fund their operations on a daily basis; these banks all operated in a high-risk, high-leverage business model. Most repo transactions are accounted for as financings; some (the Repo 105 transactions) are accounted for as sales if they meet the requirements of SFAS 140.

-- The Repo 105 transactions involved the sale by Lehman of high quality liquid assets (generally government-backed securities), in return for which Lehman received cash. The media reports that these were "sham transactions" designed to off-load Lehman's "bad assets" are inaccurate.

-- Because effective control of the securities was surrendered to the counterparty in the Repo 105 arrangements, the accounting literature (SFAS 140) required Lehman to account for Repo 105 transactions as sales rather than financings.

-- The potential claims against EY arise solely from the Examiner's conclusion that these transactions ($38.6 billion at November 30, 2007) should have been specifically disclosed in the footnotes to Lehman's financial statements, and that Lehman should have disclosed in its MD&A the impact these transactions would have had on its leverage ratios if they had been recorded as financing transactions.

-- While no specific disclosures around Repo 105 transactions were reflected in Lehman's financial statement footnotes, the 2007 audited financial statements were presented in accordance with US GAAP, and clearly portrayed Lehman as a leveraged entity operating in a risky and volatile industry. Lehman's 2007 audited financial statements included footnote disclosure of off balance sheet commitments of almost $1 trillion.

-- Lehman's leverage ratios are not a GAAP financial measure; they were included in Lehman's MD&A, not its audited financial statements. Lehman concluded no further MD&A disclosures were required; EY did not take exception to that judgment.

-- If the Repo 105 transactions were treated as if they were on the balance sheet for leverage ratio purposes, as the Examiner suggests, Lehman's reported gross leverage would have been 32.4 instead of 30.7 at November 30, 2007. Also, contrary to media reports, the decline in Lehman's reported leverage from its first to second quarters of 2008 was not a result of an increased use of Repo 105 transactions. Lehman's Repo 105 transaction volumes were comparable at the end of its first and second quarters.

Handling of the Whistleblower's Issues:

-- The media has inaccurately reported that EY concealed a May 2008 whistleblower letter from Lehman's Audit Committee. The whistleblower letter, which raised various significant potential concerns about Lehman's financial controls and reporting but did not mention Repo 105, was directed to Lehman's management. When we learned of the letter, our lead partner promptly called the Audit Committee Chair; we also insisted that Lehman's management inform the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve Bank of the letter. EY's lead partner discussed the whistleblower letter with the Lehman Audit Committee on at least three occasions during June and July 2008.

--In the investigations that ensued, the writer of the letter did briefly reference Repo 105 transactions in an interview with EY partners. He also confirmed to EY that he was unaware of any material financial reporting errors. Lehman's senior executives did not advise us of any reservations they had about the company's Repo 105 transactions.

-- Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy prevented EY from completing its assessment of the whistleblower's allegations. The allegations would have been the subject of significant attention had EY completed its third quarter review and 2008 year-end audit.

Should any of the potential claims be pursued, we are confident we will prevail.