Review the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to address the accounting scandals in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Enron, WorldCom, etc.)BELOW:

Identify the provisions that you believe made the most significant impact. What other provisions could have been included in the Act to strengthen the responsible stewardship and integrity of the accounting profession? Conversely, what existing provisions in the Act do you believe (if any) are unnecessary or over-regulate the profession?

As a result of corporate accounting scandals, such as those at Enron and WorldCom, the U.S. Congress enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The purpose of SOX is to restore trust in publicly traded corporations, their management, their financial statements, and their auditors. SOX enhances internal control and financial reporting requirements and establishes new regulatory requirements for publicly traded companies and their independent auditors. Publicly traded companies have spent millions of dollars upgrading their internal controls and accounting systems to comply with SOX regulations.

As shown in Exhibit 1-10, SOX requires the company’s CEO and CFO to assume responsibility for their company’s financial statements and disclosures. The CEO and CFO must certify that the financial statements and disclosures fairly present, in all material respects, the operations and financial condition of the company. Additionally, they must accept responsibility for establishing and maintaining an adequate internal control structure and procedures for financial reporting. The company must have its internal controls and financial reporting procedures assessed annually.

Some Important Features of SOX

SOX also requires audit committee members to be independent; that is, they may not receive any consulting or advisory fees from the company other than for their service on the board of directors. In addition, at least one of the members should be a financial expert. The audit committee oversees not only the internal audit function but also the company’s audit by independent CPAs.

To ensure that CPA firms maintain independence from their client company, SOX does not allow CPA firms to provide certain nonaudit services (such as bookkeeping and financial information systems design) to companies during the same period of time in which they are providing audit services. If a company wants to obtain such services from a CPA firm, it must hire a different firm to do the nonaudit work. Tax services may be provided by the same CPA firm if pre-approved by the audit committee. The audit partner must rotate off the audit engagement every five years, and the audit firm must undergo quality reviews every one to three years.

SOX also increases the penalties for white-collar crimes such as corporate fraud. These penalties include both monetary fines and substantial imprisonment. For example, knowingly destroying or creating documents to “impede, obstruct, or influence” any federal investigation can result in up to 20 years of imprisonment.

SOX also contains a “clawback” provision in which previously paid CEO’s and CFO’s incentive-based compensation can be recovered if the financial statements were misstated due to misconduct. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 further strengthens the clawback rules, such that firms must recover all incentive compensation paid to any current or former executive, in the three years preceding the restatement, if that compensation would not have been paid under the restated financial statements. In other words, executives will not be allowed to profit from misstated financial statements, even if the misstatement was not due to misconduct.

Stellar Ltd prepares accounts to 31March every year. Its latest trial balance for the year ended 31 March 2020 is provided below.

Stellar Ltd Trial Balance as at 31 March 2020

Additional information as at 31March 2020 is provided below:

1. Inventories at close of business on 31 March 2020 was valued at £17,500,000 at cost.
2. A cash dividend of £0.10 per share was paid to ordinary shareholders on 27 March 2020. No entries have been made in the accounts for this transaction.
3. Due to the contractual obligation to pay preference dividends, the company recognises and accounts for preference shares as a liability.
4. Depreciation is to be provided for the year ending 31March 2020 as follows:
   1. Property at 1% per annum on cost.
   2. Plant and equipment at 5% per annum on a reducing balance basis.
   3. The depreciation charge for the year is to be apportioned to administrative and distribution expenses as per the table below:

5. Interest on the debentures has not yet been paid and needs to be accrued for the year.
6. To be prudent, the directors wish to create an allowance for receivables equal to 1% of trade receivables. It is company policy to classify all bad debts and any allowances for receivables as distribution expenses.
7. Staff costs outstanding at the financial year end amounted to £500,000 and other expenses included £300,000 which had been paid in advance. Both these expenses are chargeable 60% to administration and 40% to distribution.
8. The amount for rent in the trial balance above relates to the period 1 April 2019 to May 2020. Rent expense is charged 30% to administration and 70% to distribution.
9. Half of the general expenses relate to administration and half to distribution.
10. The corporation tax charge is to be provided at 20% of profits after charging all expenses and interest

Prepare the Statement of Profit and Loss, the Statement of Changes in Equity and the Statement of Financial Position of Stellar Ltd for the financial year end 31 March 2020. (You should show all your workings).

Stellar Ltd prepares accounts to 31March every year. Its latest trial balance for the year ended 31 March 2020 is provided below.

Stellar Ltd Trial Balance as at 31 March 2020

Additional information as at 31March 2020 is provided below:

1. Inventories at close of business on 31 March 2020 was valued at £17,500,000 at cost.
2. A cash dividend of £0.10 per share was paid to ordinary shareholders on 27 March 2020. No entries have been made in the accounts for this transaction.
3. Due to the contractual obligation to pay preference dividends, the company recognises and accounts for preference shares as a liability.
4. Depreciation is to be provided for the year ending 31March 2020 as follows:
   1. Property at 1% per annum on cost.
   2. Plant and equipment at 5% per annum on a reducing balance basis.
   3. The depreciation charge for the year is to be apportioned to administrative and distribution expenses as per the table below:

5. Interest on the debentures has not yet been paid and needs to be accrued for the year.
6. To be prudent, the directors wish to create an allowance for receivables equal to 1% of trade receivables. It is company policy to classify all bad debts and any allowances for receivables as distribution expenses.
7. Staff costs outstanding at the financial year end amounted to £500,000 and other expenses included £300,000 which had been paid in advance. Both these expenses are chargeable 60% to administration and 40% to distribution.
8. The amount for rent in the trial balance above relates to the period 1 April 2019 to May 2020. Rent expense is charged 30% to administration and 70% to distribution.
9. Half of the general expenses relate to administration and half to distribution.
10. The corporation tax charge is to be provided at 20% of profits after charging all expenses and interest

Prepare the Statement of Profit and Loss, the Statement of Changes in Equity and the Statement of Financial Position of Stellar Ltd for the financial year end 31 March 2020. (You should show all your workings).

One of Current Designs' competitive advantages is found in the ingenuity of its owner and CEO, Mike Cichanowski. His involvement in the design of kayak molds and production techniques has led to Current Designs being recognized as an industry leader in the design and production of kayaks. This ingenuity was evident in an improved design of one of the most important components of a kayak, the seat. The “Revolution Seating System” is a one-of-a-kind, rotating axis seat that gives unmatched, fullcontact, under-leg support. It is quickly adjustable with a lever-lock system that allows for a customizable seat position that maximizes comfort for the rider. Having just designed the “Revolution Seating System,” Current Designs must now decide whether to produce the seats internally or buy them from an outside supplier. The costs for Current Designs to produce the seats are as follows. Direct materials $20/unit Direct labor $15/unit Variable overhead $12/unit Fixed overhead $20,000 Current Designs will need to produce 3,000 seats this year; 25% of the fixed overhead will be avoided if the seats are purchased from an outside vendor. After soliciting prices from outside suppliers, the company determined that it will cost $50 to purchase a seat from an outside vendor. Instructions (a) Prepare an incremental analysis showing whether Current Designs should make or buy the “Revolution Seating System.” (b) Would your answer in (a) change if the productive capacity released by not making the seats could be used to produce income of $20,000?

University Printers has two service departments (Maintenance and Personnel) and two operating departments (Printing and Developing). Management has decided to allocate maintenance costs on the basis of machine-hours in each department and personnel costs on the basis of labor-hours worked by the employees in each.

The following data appear in the company records for the current period:

Required:

Allocate the service department costs using the reciprocal method. (Matrix algebra is not required because there are only two service departments.) (Negative amounts should be indicated by a minus sign. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your final answers to the nearest whole dollar amounts.)

University Printers has two service departments (Maintenance and Personnel) and two operating departments (Printing and Developing). Management has decided to allocate maintenance costs on the basis of machine-hours in each department and personnel costs on the basis of labor-hours worked by the employees in each.

The following data appear in the company records for the current period:

Required:

Allocate the service department costs using the reciprocal method. (Matrix algebra is not required because there are only two service departments.) (Negative amounts should be indicated by a minus sign. Do not round intermediate calculations. Round your final answers to the nearest whole dollar amounts.)

Subject is Financial reporting (Answer is require on immegiate basis)

Q.No.6: General Fan Company (GFC) acquired an item of machinery with an amount of Rs.2 million. The company also incurred modification expenditure of Rs. 200,000 and carriage and erection cost of Rs.100,000. The machinery has a useful life of 10 years with no scrap value. The company was able to acquire a government grant of 50% against its purchase price but the grant could not be received by June 30, 2019.The accounting policy of the company is to treat the government grant as deferred credit and transfer a part of the grant to income every year.                                                                                                                               (Marks 06)

Required:

Prepare extracts of General Fan Company’s financial statements for the year ended June 30,2019 for the machinery and the associated grant as per IAS-20 Accounting for Government Grants and Disclosure of Government Assistance

Susan G. Komen for the Cure: Can This Relationship Be Saved?

Written by Mary Anne Doty, Texas A&M University– Commerce

On January 31, 2012, news reports circulated that Susan G. Komen for the Cure had decided to stop funding clinical breast exams through a grant to Planned Parenthood. Initially, Komen cited the congressional investigation of Rep. Cliff Stearns, a conservative legislator who has pushed for abortion restrictions, as the reason for the change in policy barring grants to groups under government investigation. This decision had been made quietly in late November, 2011, with notification to Planned Parenthood in mid- December. As the story broke, Komen found itself in the middle of a controversy. Overnight the organization faced severe criticism (and some praise) as the story mushroomed through television and newspapers, as well as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media.1

Susan G. Komen for the Cure has become the largest source of nonprofit funds dedicated to the fight against breast cancer in the world, investing more than $1.9 billion since 1982. In April 2012 their website listed 124 corporate sponsors from varying organizations, including product brands (American Airlines, Ford Motor Company, Mohawk Flooring, and Yoplait Yogurt), retailers (Belk, Lowe’s, Old Navy, Walgreens), and sports organizations (Dallas Cowboys, Major League Baseball, Ladies PGA).2 In thirty years the brand had reached iconic proportions, beloved by people on all parts of the political spectrum. Charity Navigator, a website that rates nonprofit organizations on the percentage of funds used for the organization’s mission and on transparency, gave Komen a rating of 4/4 stars, with a score of 62/70.3 Supporters have a very personal link with the organization because volunteers have given (or walked) in honor of loved ones affected by breast cancer.

As word trickled out about the Komen decision, supporters and critics began sharing opinions through social networking sites. Former Komen supporters responded with anger and disappointment, many expressing feelings of betrayal. While the Komen grants totaled only $680,000 in 2011, an outpouring of donations to Planned Parenthood raised $3 million in three days, including over 10,000 new donors. As the lines were drawn for supporters of both organizations, most chose Planned Parenthood.4

The negative publicity also drew attention to many of Komen’s practices that had not faced public scrutiny.5 Among the complaints were: (1) the relatively small percentage of Komen funds that go to medical research for a cure (less than 19%); (2) high salaries of the founder and board members (founder Nancy Brinker is reportedly paid over $400,000 annually); (3) large legal expenses incurred from suing other charities defending the words “for the Cure” in their trademark; and (4) making women’s health a political issue.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure did not respond to the social media uproar initially, which angered many of their former supporters.6 Komen received a strong defense from people who disapproved of Planned Parenthood. Many of these were people who previously did not support Komen’s activities because of their grants to Planned Parenthood. In spite of the approval, it was not clear that this segment would replace the funding and other support at risk by the decision.

Corporate sponsors, who generally fear controversial issues, complained that Komen had not informed them of the policy change in advance.7 While none of the sponsors publicly abandoned Susan G. Komen for the Cure in the short term, they made it clear that better communication was expected if the relationship was to thrive.

After four days of intense negative publicity, Komen announced they were reversing their decision and would consider reinstating the Planned Parenthood grants.8 Komen founder Nancy Brinker apologized and announced that in the future groups will only be disqualified from receiving grants when they are under investigations that are “criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

This response was probably a case of “too little, too late” that angered those on both sides of the debate. Planned Parenthood supporters claimed the wording was full of loopholes and not a strong repudiation of the initial decision. Planned Parenthood opponents were angry that the decision was reversed and vowed not to support Komen in the future. The slow response managed to alienate a majority of the public.9

When the decision to defund Planned Parenthood’s grant became public on February 1, 2012, a number of Komen executives and employees resigned in protest, including a medical advisory board member, a health official, and the directors of several large Komen chapters. After the reversal on February 3, public outcry did not fade away. Karen Handel, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs, received most of the blame for the initial decision and for politicizing Komen policies by focusing on abortion politics rather than detecting and treating breast cancer. Handel, a former political candidate who had campaigned on an anti–Planned Parenthood platform, resigned on February 7.10

By February 23, news stories reported Komen hired a consulting firm to assess damage to their brand among supporters.11 The 20-minute survey tested the wording of various apologies and then measured the credibility of the Komen foundation and its leaders, along with the credibility of other public figures. Komen’s problems continued into March when two top executives resigned, the Executive VP and Chief Marketing Officer, as well as the CEO of Komen’s New York City affiliate. As the organization struggled to repair its relationship with supporters, some Komen affiliates reported revenues were substantially lower than in previous campaigns, and participation in the Race for the Cure was also down.

It may take years to determine if Komen can repair its relationships and be restored as a premiere charity brand. The damage of these events affects employees in the form of poor morale, former supporters who are angered by Komen’s initial decision and are not mollified by the reversal of that decision, corporate sponsors who are leery of future controversy, a public that views Susan G. Komen for the Cure as a tarnished organization, and disappointed anti-abortion groups who remain opposed to Komen. Moving forward, it may be time to reexamine their mission. When the organization was founded in 1982, breast cancer was often a death sentence for women (and a few men) because the prognosis was poor when cancer was detected in later stages. Komen raised awareness of breast cancer and spent millions of dollars on public education and breast cancer screening. By any measure, those efforts were a resounding success. It may be time for Komen to focus their strategy on research and treatment (as implied by the trademark name, “…for the Cure”) and save their education campaigns for less informed segments.

Question 1: How did social media impact the complaining behaviors of donors and participants for Susan G. Komen for the Cure activities?

Question 2: What types of complaining behaviors were most apparent? What was the response by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to negative public publicity after their decision to stop funding mammograms in partnership with Planned Parenthood? Would you have responded differently had you been in charge?

Question 3: Officials at Susan G. Komen for the Cure seemed unprepared for the intensity of response that they encountered. How would an understanding of the difference between customer loyalty and customer inertia have prepared the Komen officials for the reactions they experienced?

Question 4: Does the Komen organization demonstrate I characteristics of relationship loyalty with their donors? Why or why not?

Question 5: Many Komen supporters switched their donations to Planned Parenthood after the negative public publicity. Use the concept of share of wallet to explain why this might have happened.