Superfund Case Study

1067 Words3 Pages

SuperFund, a client of our accounting firm’s New York office, is considering purchasing a piece of unproven oil and gas property from Mountain Resources, a client of our Denver firm for $42 Million dollars. We know that the value of the land is $9 million and we know that no resources have been found after extensive testing by Mountain Resources, which forced us to advise Mountain Resources to write down the value of the land from $15 million to $9 million. There are many issues that can be recognized as potentially damaging to both our accounting firm (the firm) and our client SuperFund which need to be addressed before we consider whether to sign off and approve the transaction.
1) SuperFund could unknowingly risk realizing a significant …show more content…

A significant loss of financial assets due to the write down could negatively affect SuperFunds’s overall financial position, as wells as negatively affect the financial position of the shareholders.
c. SuperFunds, being a large investment company, most likely utilizes a significant amount of outside capital to do business, and a loss of this magnitude could affect their professional reputation and impair their ability to raise capital for any future transactions since they could lose credibility for not doing sufficient due diligence prior to making the purchase.
2) Since we are aware of the fair value of the property as we prepared the financial statements for Mountain Resources, any lack of comment on our part could be considered a lack of due professional care. Due professional care demands a recognized level of responsibility upon each professional within the firm to observe any issues that may affect the client. (PCAOB, n.d.)
3) Our silence on the transaction could be considered implied approval of the purchase by SuperFunds since the firm is aware of the failure of Mountain Resources to actually find oil on the property. If and when recognized by SuperFunds, we risk our professional relationship with SuperFunds due to the potential risk of loss they will …show more content…

The negative impact could extend to the following:
1) First and foremost, it would be a violation of Independence rules to offer any nonattest services to SuperFunds including any expert services unrelated to an audit. According to the AICPA’s Guide to Independence, Chapter 8, General Requirement 2, a firm “…may not assume management responsibilities or even appear to assume management responsibilities.” (AICPA, 2015)
2) There is an expected measure of independence between offices of the same firm, as each office has its own clientele and operates essentially independently. Information could be shared on a need to know basis, for example if someone in the New York firm was also a member of the audit team of Mountain Resources, but this doesn’t appear to be the case. Essentially it would be impossible for the firm to maintain

More about Superfund Case Study

Open Document