Search results

Part II contrasts the views of materiality in the Conceptual Frameworks of the IASB, FASB, IPSAS, and other framework such as the Integrated Reporting. In particular, it analyzes at what level and how differently that concept interacts with the qualitative characteristics of financial information in each of those frameworks. It looks at its pervasiveness and entity specificity, the interlock with the concept of relevance, reliability and faithful representation, completeness, understandability, neutrality, and drills down to the link to recognition.

This part then compares the definitions of materiality in different standards and contexts, to then draw a taxonomy of materiality and its attributes, such as the subject matter, thecontext of assessment, the addressees, the assessor, and the materiality test. A large part of the analysis involves the comparison between legal definitions of materiality and characterizations in the accounting, financial, and larger management contexts.

May 28, 1968 Negligence — Safe system of work — Safe means of access — Quarry — Employers transporting workman by barge across water to quarry — Place of work on bank — Access to place of work by stepping above turning propeller — Whether unsafe method of transport — Worker slipping injured by propeller — Whether employers negligent — Whether breach of statutory duty to provide “safe means of access” — Whether negligence eliminates defence of impracticability — Worker before accident doing heavy work — After accident worker permanently fit for light work only but earning substantially as much as before accident — Whether element in total award of damages — Mines and Quarries Act, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz.II, c.70), ss.109,157.

The purpose of this paper is to examine relevant case law governing the failure and/or success of global or rolled‐up claims, where it is said to be impractical or impossible to demonstrate the links between certain causes of action and the monetary value to be attached to each. The paper proposes a theoretical framework to improve a claimant's prospects of success in advancing a global claim, not only in circumstances where it may be impractical or impossible to provide a breakdown but also where a cost benefit analysis concludes it is reasonable to do so.

The paper uses traditional doctrinal legal methodology to evaluate judicial statements on the merits of global claims from a number of jurisdictions. The paper also draws on key authorities from the realms of health and safety and professional negligence.

The cases demonstrate attempts by the court to recognise the problems faced by claimants at the end of a construction contract where their total costs exceed the agreed contract price. The comparative success or failure of a global claim depends on the judicial approach to a number of factors including: impossibility, impracticability, conduct of the claimant and defendant, balance between excessive particularity and basic information, the keeping of records, the costs of claim preparation and apportionment. There remains a significant risk of failure of a global claim but the risk can be reduced significantly provided the claimant conducts a defensible cost benefit analysis of the approach taken.

A global claim can be used more often provided the rationale behind its presentation forms a logical basis. The cost of litigating complex construction contracts can be reduced significantly if global claims can become the norm rather than the exception, provided the claimant conducts a cost benefit analysis and the court concludes the analysis is reasonable and defensible.

Traditional legal theory relies upon the proposition that the claimant must prove that to which he believes he is entitled to such an extent that the defendant's right to know the case it has to meet is satisfied. This paper adds value to the theory by proposing a radical strategy whereby a reasonable claimant can assist the court in finding a factual and logical basis for awarding the whole of a global claim and, where appropriate, by deduction in addition to the principle of apportionment, less than the whole.

Part I introduces the background of why materiality matters in financial statements. One of the main reasons for determining whether a fact is material is to check whether its misstatement overtakes the watershed which makes financial statements not comply with the relative financial reporting framework.

This part also introduces one of the themes of the book: the interaction of the views of the different subjects involved in materiality assessment, i.e., users, preparers, auditors, regulators, and the related conflicts of interest. Materiality plays a different role in this depending on who is looking at it.

The part also comprises an overview of the main projects underlying the current debate about materiality, that is, the International Accounting Standards Board’s Disclosure Initiative, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Disclosure Framework and the SEC’s Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, including a list of their main steps and documents issued to date.

Increased automation and improvements in cost‐effective volume production techniques have, paradoxically, created additional difficulties when small quantities of printed circuit boards are required. There is consequently a growing interest in bench top and small modular equipment capable of producing high quality boards. This market, once almost exclusively confined to research and development laboratories, has extended rapidly throughout universities and polytechnics, government agencies and manufacturers of all types of electrical and electronic equipment. The impracticability of introducing small quantities into a volume production unit has extended the usefulness of such equipment to the “in‐house” facilities of the high volume printed circuit board manufacturers themselves.

1. The Committee was informed that the manufacture of shredded suet from imported premier jus is subject to control by licence and that it is a condition of the licences that the product shall contain not less than 83 per cent. of fat. This figure was adopted in 1931 by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists pending the establishment of a legal standard. 2. In the manufacture of shredded suet premier jus the fat is forced into shreds or granules and a cereal or amylaceous filler is added so as to form a coating over the particles of fat, thus preventing them from adhering together and at the same time retarding the development of rancidity. 3. The amount of filler taken up by the shredded fat depends primarily on its stickiness, which in turn depends on the temperature at which the manufacturing process is conducted. Manufacturers must give special attention to the problem of securing uniformity of distribution, otherwise part of a batch will take up more than its share of the amount of filler allowed by the manufacturing formula. In spite of all practicable care, complete uniformity cannot be ensured and some tolerance is therefore necessary to allow for unavoidable variations. 4. The proportion of filler used in the past by different manufacturers has varied considerably. A purchaser of shredded suet is primarily purchasing fat and it is desirable that the fat content shall be the maximum that can be included whilst still retaining good keeping properties. The Committee is of the opinion that shredded suet, to be of satisfactory quality, should not contain substantially less than 85 percent. of fat, and that a product approximating to this standard will have the necessary keeping properties. The Committee is satisfied that the allowance of 2 per cent. for uneven distribution on and among the shreds, which was adopted by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts in 1931, is reasonable, and understands that it is considered adequate by the manufacturers of shredded suet. 5. A small amount of suet (i.e., natural unrendered fat), received by butchers as part of their meat allocation, is chopped or minced, and in the latter case mixed with cereal filler and sold under the description “shredded suet.” By whichever method it is prepared it differs from the shredded suet made from premier jus by reason of the presence of membrane and moisture. If made by chopping it will contain more fat than the product made from premier jus, but if made by mincing and admixture with a filler it is likely to contain less owing to the membrane and moisture in the raw material and the impracticability of analytical control. 6. It was suggested to the Committee that the use of the description shredded suet for the products made by butchers was misleading and that the name should be restricted to the product made from premier jus. The Committee is, however, of the opinion that the general public would be equally satisfied whether the product supplied in response to a demand for shredded suet had been prepared with premier jus or suet. Further, it is considered that a purchaser of shredded suet is not prejudiced if he receives a product containing membrane and moisture provided he also receives the appropriate amount of fat. It therefore does not appear to the Committee that there is any necessity, from the viewpoint of protecting the public in regard to quality, for recommending the imposition of this restriction. 7. The Committee noted that the statement issued by the Council of the Society of Public Analysts included an expression of opinion that “the nature of any admixture to suet should be declared.” This recommendation is, however, outside the terms of reference of the Committee and no comment is therefore made thereon. 8. The Committee accordingly recommends that shredded suet should be required to contain not less than 83 per cent. of fat.

February 27, 1973 Factory — Statutory duty — Fume — Inhalation of low concentrations of oxides of nitrogen over prolonged period — Chronic lung illness — Employers' constructive knowledge of health hazard — Medical and other publications — Whether sufficiently indicating health hazard from 1965 onwards — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 63 (1).

This paper describes an in‐depth case study of auditors, and presents a non‐linear model of an information seeking and using process in the workplace. It argues for a model that focuses on information users’ perceived situations at a particular time and place. The model comprises a set of critically different situations that auditors perceived in dynamic information seeking and using processes in their workplaces: task initiation situation, focus formulating situation, ideas assuming situation, ideas confirming situation, ideas rejecting situation, ideas finalising situation and passing on ideas situation. Distinctive information behaviours associated with each situation are identified. The model has important implications: first, it highlights the impracticability of modelling a “right” information seeking and using path for all auditors; second, it explains phenomena considered as exceptions in traditional information seeking models; third, it points out the changing meaning of information for auditors in different situations. The alternative model provides a framework for transcending current practices in information literacy education, information systems design and information management.

The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an interpretative release ostensibly mandating the disclosure of the impact that climate change may have on the registrant. One means of enforcement for this release is through the use of comment letters. Prior empirical studies have supported the argument that the SEC oversight through issuing comment letters is effective in enhancing the quality of firms’ disclosures (Asthana & Boone, 2009; Johnston & Petacchi, 2017). With a total of 27 comment letter cases (34 comments based on the topics) regarding climate change disclosure, we do not find clear evidence strongly supporting that the SEC implements its oversight process through systematic procedures and that SEC comment letters enhance the quality of firms’ climate change disclosure. Although some firms responded to the comments proactively, qualitative analysis reveals that the firm’s revisions were not sufficient to provide useful information for market participants in general. The overall finding suggests that the current oversight mechanism for climate change disclosure needs to be significantly improved to enhance the quality of firms’ climate change disclosure.