It has also been reported that convention allowed the Board to not get its books audited with the purported reason being “the Monitor won’t allow it” due to the CCAA proceeding.
First – I would want to hear that directly from the Monitor and preferably in writing so I would have someone to sue if the gov’t came after me for not filing audited returns.
Second – those numbers have got to be available somewhere. If the Monitor is not allowing District to publicize them, then the Monitor should have those figures available and make them available to the convention. It is not reasonable to expect the convention to make good decisions without them.
Third – I refer people to the Monitor’s 36th report which states in its Notice to Reader :
Notice to Reader
9. In preparing this report, the Monitor has relied on unaudited financial information, the books and records of the Applicants, and discussions with the Applicant’s employees, the Applicant’s Chief Restructuring Officer (the “CRO”), interested parties and stakeholders.
10. The financial information of the Applicants has not been audited, reviewed or otherwise verified by the Monitor as to its accuracy or completeness, nor has it necessarily been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and the reader is cautioned that this report may not disclose all significant matters about the Applicants. Additionally, none of the Monitor’s procedures were intended to disclose defalcations or other irregularities. If the Monitor were to perform additional procedures or to undertake an audit examination of the financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, additional matters may come to the Monitor’s attention. Accordingly, the Monitor does not express an opinion nor does it provide any other form of assurance on the financial or other information presented herein. The Monitor may refine or alter its observations as further information is obtained or brought to its attention after the date of this report.
11. The Monitor assumes no responsibility or liability for any loss or damage occasioned by any party as a result of the circulation, publication, reproduction, or use of this report. Any use, which any party makes of this report, or any reliance or decision to be made based on this report, is the sole responsibility of such party.
To me this reads that the Monitor is making a good faith estimation as to what’s being reported but it won’t put it’s John Hancock on the line and legally certify that these numbers are true and accurate and accept the liability that comes with it. That, in turn means that the financials reported in this document as useful to a certain extent – and that’s about it.
Is there a legal reason for not having audited records? There may be – and I’d want to see the court order or the citation of pertinent law from an authoritative non-biased source before I would be willing to vote “yes” to allowing District to go without audited financials and withhold other pertinent financial data from the convention.