Quite so - and of course they can never claim to have looked at everything
(no client could ever afford to pay the fee, and no auditor would be foolish
enough the take on an assignment to check *everything*), so they can never
give a categorical yes or no.
You have to read the basis on which whatever opinion is voiced - and in this
case their refusal to give an opinion is simply because they were not
provided with sufficient evidence to substantiate the accounts. In effect
the auditors doubted the veracity of the accounts, and invited Olympus
"Prove it". Olympus couldn't. It is absolutely not a smoking gun, but in
the context it is as bad a grade as you can get from "teacher".
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Barker [mailto:ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 November 2011 18:00
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus' future truly looks bleak after latest
revelations...
They're probably as specific as they needed to be without attracting court
action.
Chris
On 9 Nov 2011, at 15:04, Ken Norton wrote:
>> OK, I'll admit, those aren't whistles - they are more like bl**dy
> foghorns!
>
>
> Well, yes and no. They didn't give enough specifics for anybody to run
> with unless they already suspected something rather amiss.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|