Bluedell 5,348 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Companies Act 2006 Section 519 (3) Where an auditor of a quoted company ceases for any reason to hold office, he must deposit at the company's registered office a statement of the circumstances connected with his ceasing to hold office. (4) The statement required by this section must be deposited— (a) in the case of resignation, along with the notice of resignation; (b) in the case of failure to seek re-appointment, not less than 14 days before the end of the time allowed for next appointing an auditor; © in any other case, not later than the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which he ceases to hold office 520 Company's duties in relation to statement (1) This section applies where the statement deposited under section 519 states the circumstances connected with the auditor's ceasing to hold office. (2) The company must within 14 days of the deposit of the statement either— (a) send a copy of it to every person who under section 423 is entitled to be sent copies of the accounts (6) In the event of default in complying with this section an offence is committed by every officer of the company who is in default. (8) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine; (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 jesus wept will this nightmare ever end 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 If Deloitte resigned in June why was resolution 6 ("6. To re-appoint Deloitte LLP as auditors") voted on and passed at the AGM in December? Resolutions 1 & 7 were also related to the auditors ("1. To receive and adopt the audited accounts" and "7.To authorise the Directors to determine the remuneration of the auditors"). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 No wonder greenco hid this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 The new board need to be pushing Deloitte's, for a full and frank open answer as to why they resigned. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It is difficult to escape the conclusion that they were not comfortable with the then directors assurances about the going concern basis and it is equally difficult to escape the conclusion that they were correct. I believe I alluded to this likely outcome at the time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,877 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Yet another reason to sack Llambias and Leach without any payoff. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,348 Posted March 31, 2015 Author Share Posted March 31, 2015 It is difficult to escape the conclusion that they were not comfortable with the then directors assurances about the going concern basis and it is equally difficult to escape the conclusion that they were correct. I believe I alluded to this likely outcome at the time. If it was the going concern issue, then they were not correct as we are still trading and would continue to do so for the next 12 months, whether under the old board or the new one. I think that it is more likely a more general distrust of the directors ad they just felt that they were dishonest, and not specifically in respect of going concern. They would not want to be auditors of a company where they don't believe the directors. In addition the general presence of the Easdales may have had an influence. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Yet another reason to sack Llambias and Leach without any payoff. i think this is the boards idea here, giving out enough evidence of their unscrupulous verging on criminal behaviour. Not to mention the massive failings in fiduciary duties to the club. Also the clear bias towards Ashley and Sports Direct, their sacking is warranted for the loaned players alone, before we get to the onerous contracts. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,173 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 Excuse my naivety but I don't understand this. Why did Deloitte allow themselves to be associated with the club in public if they resign last June? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.