The company went through a mandatory audit, and compiled a financial report done by a specific auditor meeting the requirements of the AICPA’s Code of Professional Conduct. According to the general standards, an individual having adequate training and proficiency, as well as experience, as an auditor should do the audit. The terms of the report were quite simple, ascertaining whether the financial statements were presented, in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles. At the same time, the informative disclosures in the financial statements were to be regarded as reasonably adequate, unless the report stated otherwise.
The ethicality and legality of the events surrounding the case are quite questionable on both sides, but particularly on the side of Associated Agencies. The report observed principles that had been consistently observed in the current period relating to the preceding period. This accounts for the reason the court ruled one way for two phases of payments, but stayed the motion on the third. Looking closely at the turn of events, it suffices to conclude that ethicality and legality of business reporting is mandatory for smooth running of business, regardless of the circumstances.