The PCAOB said it had disapproved the application of Arizona-based firm James C. Marshall PC because the firm failed to respond ‘adequately and appropriately to identified deficiencies in its audit work’.
According to the board the firm received its second adverse peer review in 2001, resulting in the firm agreeing to have a concurring reviewer perform pre-issuance reviews of all its SEC engagements.
But it then went on to issue seven audit reports between 2002 and 2003 without having reviews performed by a concurring reviewer as per the agreement. This resulted in its expulsion from the American Institute of CPAs, with an appeal against the decision denied.
In a notice issued the PCAOB said: ‘Marshall has demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to comply with the reasonable requirements, imposed by a professional body responsible for reviewing Marshall’s audit work, to take corrective steps concerning deficiencies in Marshall’s audit work.’
‘Marshall has demonstrated a lack of candour with the board and a failure to give sufficient care to fundamental requirements of the board’s rules,’ it added.
Two new audit partners have been appointed at the firm BDO in its audit practice following continued growth and investment
Investment in people, tech and businesses impacts on EY's profit per partner figure
If businesses do not take cyber security seriously in their business planning regulators may do it for them, the ICAEW has warned
Dr Richard Willis provides a several thousand-year history lesson of the profession, from origin to modern-day