22 Jan 2009, Gavin Hinks, AccountancyAge
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1756471/pwc-left-waiting-satyam
The auditors of troubled Indian outsourcing giant Satyam are unlikely to learn if they are to keep the audit until late spring.
Two weeks ago Satyam chairman B Ramalinga Raju admitted an accounting fraud estimated at $1bn (£722m) had taken place at the company.
PricewaterhouseCoopers in Hyderabad last week wrote to the Satyam board saying its audits covering June 2000 to September last year could not be relied upon.
Speculation surfaced that PwC would be fired from the audit, but Satyam sources have said the auditor can only be removed by a shareholder vote at an AGM and that is unlikely to take place before May.
Satyam would not comment this week but the new government-appointed board is due to meet again on Saturday and could reveal when restated third quarter results will be published, which would give some indication of a timetable for the AGM.
KPMG and Deloitte are working on restatements and Satyam has made it clear they are not replacing PwC as auditor. PwC declined to comment but UK staff are understood to be among a ‘handful’ of experts reviewing the audit in Hyderabad.
The firm has been reassuring other Indian audit clients but it is understood
none have decided to jump ship for another audit firm following the Satyam
scandal.
Satyam has appointed new internal audit advisers and is looking for a CFO after
Srinivas Vadlamani
stepped down along with Raju. The board has also created a new audit committee, to be chaired by TN Manoharan, chairman of the Satyam board and a former president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.
© Incisive Media Investments Limited 2012, Published by Incisive Financial Publishing Limited, Haymarket House, 28-29 Haymarket, London SW1Y 4RX, are companies registered in England and Wales with company registration numbers 04252091 & 04252093
Visitor comments
What a difference a word makes
The earlier article on the subject by Gavin (16 January)
said the audits can be relied upon,
whereas today's says that they could not.
You may wish to clarify for readers.
Posted by: Stephen Glover , 22 Jan 2009 | 00:00