GPG annual report reveals row with auditors
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.GUINNESS Peat Group's annual report has revealed an extraordinary disagreement between the company and its auditors, Coopers & Lybrand, writes John Murray.
The company has included restated results for 1991, showing a pre- tax loss of pounds 27.3m against a reported profit at the time of pounds 10.9m. It said it included these figures only under duress and at the insistence of the auditors. The statement described them as 'completely fictitious'.
The restated figures arose out of a change in accounting policies relating to the writing off of goodwill on acquisitions and disposals, and were included in the group's document when its shares were relisted in November.
Blake Nixon, a GPG director, said the company's argument was more with the politics of accounting standards than with Coopers.
'Our auditors said at the time that the pounds 10m profit was a true and fair view of the company's performance; now they insist that under the new UITF standard, a loss of pounds 27m is a true and fair view,' he said. 'Both views cannot be correct.'
He pointed out that the restated figures had no effect on shareholders' funds in the balance sheet.
Coopers refused to comment beyond its auditors' statement in the report and accounts. It said: 'We do not agree with the comments made on page 38 (of the report).'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments