Brazil’s answer to Sean Quinn…
Well that’s clearly soccer carry on anyway.
Was he “tired and emotional” as the old saying went?
Maybe late onset jet-lag from all that running’n’racing around Russia squirreling away the dosh!
Could be celebrating or maybe drowning his sorrows…
And no-one had a mobile handy?
I can only imagine what “my daddy” lines he came out with!
Any chance the kid will end up in Juvi given his past convictions
I was just shocked that a member of the Quinn Family was using public transport
I was under the impression, given how much they were telling the courts they needed to survive on, that they all went around in Gold Carriages pulled by Unicorns
It’s alright, calm down, it was a gravy train…
The Quinn’s are trying to rescue their case against the IBRC by naming the Department of Finance and the Central Bank as defendants.
More accurately, “PWC backs itself and claims the advice it gave Quinn at the time was not created by crack-addled monkeys.”
Is this typical auditor speak? Does this mean that there may have been a hundred and one reasons why the cross company guarantees would cause problems, but if so PWC were blissfully ignorant of same?
It seems to me that the Quinn family have been saying that they spent a bomb on legal and acocunting fees for advice as to how these matters might be properly represented in the books. PWC are standing over the advice given.
However, auditors often disclaim all responsibility for giving clean bills of health to ailing companies on the basis that their audit is based solely on information provided to them and they cannot know everything about a company or predict the future.
As such, whether or not the items were properly recorded in the books does noo answer the question as to whether the Insurance Company’s business was solvent or sustainable. Presumably that is what the regulator needs to assess when deciding to step in and take over the company or not?
Is it legal for PWC to offer such advice while auditing? I don’t believe so.
Auditors have standard form reports for audits which are only modified if they are not 100% happy that the accounts are a true and fair representation. I’m sure others here have more knowledge of auditing than I do.
The more I think about it the more it looks like the Regulator dropped the ball here. They were perfectly entitled to make a pronouncement that they believed that the cross-company guarantees were being overvalued. But I’m not sure that they were entitled to arbitrarily remove these guarantees in their entirety from the solvency calculations.
I think the regulator took the view that the existence of cross company guarantees reduced the solvency of the insurance company i.e. the insurance company was guaranteeing the other companies in the Group and in the event of group default the creditors would have had potentially first call on the insurance company’s assets.
I assumed the guarantees were from the other companies to the insurance group? Is this wrong? Because otherwise PWC’s statement makes no sense: that they had “no reason to believe that the existence of cross-company guarantees of any type would have any financial impact”.