expressing an unqualified opinion on the financials presented as a whole.
Smith, the engagement partner, instructed Mary, an assistant on the engagement, to
draft the auditor’s report on November 4, 2012, the date of fieldwork completion. In
drafting the report Mary considered the following:
In preparing its financial statements, Concord changed its method of accounting for
research and development costs and properly expensed these amounts. Management
described the change in principle in Note 10 to the consolidated financial statements.
Ball & Brown, CPAs, audited the financial statements of Biotherm, Inc., a consolidated
subsidiary of Concord for the year ended September 30, 2012 . The subsidiary’s
financial statements reflect total assets of 22% and total revenues of 20% of the
consolidated totals. Ball & Brown expressed an unqualified opinion and furnished to
Smith & Jones a copy of their auditor report. Smith & Jones have decided not to assume
responsibility for the work of Ball & Brown insofar as it relates to the expression of an
opinion on the consolidated financial statements taken as a whole because of the
materiality of Biotherm’s financial statements to the consolidated whole. Ball &
Brown’s report will not be presented together with that of Smith & Jones.
Concord is the subject of a grand jury investigation into possible violations of federal
antitrust laws and possible related crimes. Related civil class actions are pending.
Concord’s management has adequately disclosed in Note 12 to their consolidated
financial statements. Because of the early stage of the investigation, the ultimate
outcome of these matters cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, no provision for
any liability that may result has been recorded.
Concord experienced a net loss in 2012 and is currently in default under substantially
all of its debt agreements. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are adequately
disclosed in Note 14 to Concord’s consolidated financial statements. The financials do
not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
These matters rase substantial doubt about Concord’s ability to continue as a going
concern.
Ball reviewed Mary’s draft and indicated in his review notes that there were many
deficiencies in Mary’s Draft. The audit report that Mary drafted follows.
Independent Auditor’s Report
We have audited the consolidated financial statements of Concord, Inc., and
subsidiaries as of September 30, 2012, and the related consolidated statements of
income, changes in stockholders equity and cash flows for the year then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We did not audit the financial statements of Biotherm, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary,
which statements reflect total assets and revenues constituting 22% and 20%
respectively at September 30, 2011 of the consolidated totals. Those statements were
audited by Ball & Brown, CPAs, whose reports have been furnished to us, and our
opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for Biotherm, Inc. is based solely
on their report.
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An
audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting
principles used, as well as assessing control risk. We believe our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, based on our audit and the report of the other auditors, the consolidated
financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the