Can auditor report sign by one director ?

[biztreesg]

Anyone knew that can the auditor report sign by only ONE director everthought the company have 3 directors and the quaraum for director trsanction is 2 was stated on the company' s MA?

[Strong Eagle]

If you have stated that two directors must act together, then no, both must sign.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Yeah, sometimes it can be a beach! on of our companies has for directors and all for must sign. The problem is one is in Uni in the UK one is back and forth and 2 are here.

[JR8]

Boilerplate Memorandum and Articles of Association in the UK usually allow that a director who lives outside of the UK is not required to be notified of a meeting/vote. In the same vein, a quorum can be formed without consulting them.

In central London property freehold companies this can be an issue, as with many overseas owners, you can end up with one director assuming control.



p.s. edit to add. This of course is UK law. But it would not surprise me hugely to see something similar carried over into SGn law.

[biztreesg]

Thanks all for your replies .

What if resolution had been passed to approve auditor report to be sign by 1 director , is this acceptable ? And i believe with the passed resolution we can overwrite what stated in MA ( Quraum is 2 director)

Beside that ACRA also give the public option to apply for sign by 1 director..

Anyone knew what is the request from auditing ? Any FRS requirement ?

[carteki]

Anyone knew what is the request from auditing ? Any FRS requirement ?

Did you ask your auditors? From a pure audit standpoint the financial statements don't have to be signed by anyone - especially as the production of financial statements is NOT part of the audit process. It is the company memoranda and local law that governs this.

[sundaymorningstaple]

OP, do you pay the directors director's fees? If yes, just tell 'em to sign it. I don't see what the problem is, unless you are trying to pull a fast one over the directors.....

[Strong Eagle]

Anyone knew what is the request from auditing ? Any FRS requirement ?

Did you ask your auditors? From a pure audit standpoint the financial statements don't have to be signed by anyone - especially as the production of financial statements is NOT part of the audit process. It is the company memoranda and local law that governs this.

I disagree. Directors must sign audited financial statements, stating that there are no material misstatements of fact. I've always had to sign my audited statements.

[JR8]

Anyone knew what is the request from auditing ? Any FRS requirement ?

Did you ask your auditors? From a pure audit standpoint the financial statements don't have to be signed by anyone - especially as the production of financial statements is NOT part of the audit process. It is the company memoranda and local law that governs this.

I disagree. Directors must sign audited financial statements, stating that there are no material misstatements of fact. I've always had to sign my audited statements.

I'm not an expert in this sphere, but surely it is the auditors who are stating that the directors have not materially misstated the facts rather than vice versa?

Aren't the auditors a higher level and independent authority free of being 'signed off on' (i.e. their whole point in the first place)?

Dunno!

[sundaymorningstaple]

Don't know about UK laws, but in Singapore, the Directors HAVE to sign the Reports to verify all statements both verbal and documentary handed to the auditors are of a factual nature and that they agree with the findings and to also give permission for the auditors to make any necessary YE adjustments as required.

[carteki]

I disagree. Directors must sign audited financial statements, stating that there are no material misstatements of fact. I've always had to sign my audited statements.

SE - I was being very technical. The preparation of the numbers in the format of a balance sheet and income statement is NOT part of the audit process. It is possible to have an audit without producing financial statements (and that doesn't negate the value of the audit). I'm not sure as to the SG requirements, but during the audit management sign a "management representation letter" that states that they have disclosed all relevant and material information to the auditors. This will be signed regardless of whether or not financial statements are produced.

I'm not an expert in this sphere, but surely it is the auditors who are stating that the directors have not materially misstated the facts rather than vice versa?

Aren't the auditors a higher level and independent authority free of being 'signed off on' (i.e. their whole point in the first place)?

It is an inherent limitation in the audit process that if management want to "hide" something then it can be very difficult for the auditors to find it - and it is perfectly possible to do so. Think about cash sales. If the guy receives payment in cash and puts it in his pocket with no receipt, there is no reason why the auditors should think that the sales figures are understated (and therefore the co is paying lower tax). There is a great deal of reliance in the audit process on the management representation that they have disclosed everything.

In suiing an audit firm for negligence you have to prove 2 things - 1) that the auditor ought reasonably to have known about what was going on; and 2) that the judgement call that they made was wrong. Both of which are really difficult to prove, remembering that you cannot use the benefit of hindsight.

(The 3rd is that you need to prove that you made your decision based on the audited information - but this is not relevant to the discussion)