Mixing Forensic Acctg And Valuation In Litigation

1,250 views

Published on

Mixing forensic accounting and valuation in a litigation assignment

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,250
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 2008 Report based on data compiled from 959 cases between January 2006 and February 2008 Prior reports included: 1996, 2002, 2004 & 2006
  • Mixing Forensic Acctg And Valuation In Litigation

    1. 1. Presented by: W. James Lloyd, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFE, ASA AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15-17, 2009 Mixing Forensic Accounting and Valuation in a Litigation Engagement
    2. 2. Presentation Objectives <ul><li>CPA’s role in litigation/dispute resolution matters </li></ul><ul><li>Overview of fraud/forensic accounting </li></ul><ul><li>Fraud statistics – how and how much </li></ul><ul><li>When to do it – assertions and/or suspicions </li></ul><ul><li>What to look for – red flags </li></ul><ul><li>How to find it – tools and techniques </li></ul><ul><li>What to do with it – documentation and using the results </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    3. 3. CPA’s Role in Litigation <ul><li>CPA’s are often engaged as experts in connection with litigation matters for purposes such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determining the value of a business or business interest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Measuring damages such as lost profits or diminished value </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigating fraudulent or other inappropriate activity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Generally engaged as either: testifying expert or consulting expert </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    4. 4. Applicability <ul><li>Litigation engagements where forensic accounting procedures may be necessary: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Marital disputes where one spouse has control of the business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shareholder disputes (minority oppression matters) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Post M&A transactions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lost profits/diminished value claims </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Bankruptcies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lender fraud </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    5. 5. Fraud Defined <ul><li>Fraud is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A knowing misrepresentation of the truth or concealment of a material fact to induce another to act to his or her detriment. A misrepresentation made recklessly without belief in its truth to induce another person to act. A tort arising from a knowing misrepresentation made to induce another to act to his or her detriment. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Could also be defined as – the improper conversion of another’s assets to one’s own benefit. </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    6. 6. Essential Elements of Fraud <ul><li>Intentional material false statements or willful omission of a material fact </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge by the perpetrator that the statements or omissions are false and misleading </li></ul><ul><li>Intent for the misrepresentation to be acted upon </li></ul><ul><li>Reliance by the victim </li></ul><ul><li>Damages to the victim </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    7. 7. Fraud Determination <ul><li>The ultimate conclusion as to whether fraud has been committed is a matter for the trier of fact </li></ul><ul><li>Involves “state of mind” issues for both the perpetrator and the victim (e.g., intent and reliance) </li></ul><ul><li>Our job as forensic/valuation experts is to determine the facts – i.e. what actually happened?.... and what’s the result? </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    8. 8. Fraud Triangle AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page Management or other employees have an incentive or are under pressure Circumstances exist – ineffective or absent control, or management ability to override controls – that provide opportunity Culture or environment enables management or other employees to rationalize committing fraud Rationalize Opportunity Incentive
    9. 9. General Categories of Occupational Fraud <ul><li>The general categories of fraud involving businesses include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Asset misappropriations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Corruption </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fraudulent financial statements </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    10. 10. Asset Misappropriations <ul><li>Defined as “any scheme that involves the theft or misuse of an organization’s assets” </li></ul><ul><li>Asset misappropriations generally involve either incoming receipts or outgoing disbursements </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    11. 11. Common Asset Misappropriation Schemes <ul><li>Schemes involving incoming receipts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Skimming (before the cash is recorded) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cash larceny (after the cash is recorded) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Schemes involving outgoing disbursements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Billing schemes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expense reimbursements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Check tampering </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    12. 12. Corruption <ul><li>Defined as: “any scheme in which a person uses his/her influence in a business transaction to obtain an unauthorized benefit that is contrary to that person’s duty to his/her employer” </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    13. 13. Common Types of Corruption Fraud <ul><li>Conflicts of Interest E xample: employee owns an undisclosed interest in a supplier and negotiates a contract his employer and the supplier </li></ul><ul><li>Bribery E xample: employee accepts a payment from a vendor for confidential information about a competitor’s bid on a project </li></ul><ul><li>Illegal Gratuities E xample: employee accepts a free vacation from a vendor after negotiating a contract for his employer </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    14. 14. Financial Statement Fraud <ul><li>Generally committed by upper management to make the company’s earnings and/or financial condition appear better (or worse) than actual </li></ul><ul><li>Typical reasons include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lure investors or creditors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Receive performance based compensation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Keep stock price high for acquisitions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Debt covenants </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Divorce (business is a marital asset) </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    15. 15. Forensic Accounting <ul><li>Forensic accounting services generally involve: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The application of special skills in accounting, auditing, finance, quantitative methods, certain areas of the law and research, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigative skills to collect, analyze, and evaluate evidential matter and to interpret and communicate findings, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>May involve either an attest or consulting engagement. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Above definition adopted by the AICPA Business Valuation/Forensic and Litigation Services Executive Committee: January 2006 </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    16. 16. Primary Purpose <ul><li>The primary purpose of a forensic accounting engagement is to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Determine whether the suspicions or allegations of fraud have merit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Quantify the estimated losses/damages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Gather information that will assist the trier of fact with resolving the matter </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    17. 17. Fraud Stats - ACFE’s 2008 Report to the Nation <ul><li>Approximately 7% of revenue is lost each year due to fraud </li></ul><ul><li>Median loss was $175,000 </li></ul><ul><li>Median loss for companies with less than 100 employees was $200,000 </li></ul><ul><li>25% of the cases had losses of at least $1M </li></ul><ul><li>Typical length of time between the date the fraud started and detected was 2 years </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    18. 18. ACFE’s 2008 Report to the Nation (Continued) <ul><li>Respondents were asked how the frauds they investigated were initially discovered. </li></ul>The sum of the percentages exceeds 100% because some cases involve more than one type of fraud
    19. 19. Perpetrator’s Profile <ul><li>Higher income and education = greater loss </li></ul><ul><li>Highest median losses related to employees with 6-10 years of tenure: ( $261,000 for 6-10 years vs. $50,000 for <1 year) </li></ul><ul><li>Median loss for males was $250,000 vs. $110,000 for females </li></ul><ul><li>More education means higher losses: ( $550,000 for postgraduate vs. $100,000 for high school) </li></ul><ul><li>Ages 51-60 represented the highest median loss ( $500,000 for 51-60 vs. $25,000 for <26) </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    20. 20. Small Organizations Suffered Disproportionately Large Losses Source: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners 2008 Report to the Nation
    21. 21. ACFE’s 2008 Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud & Abuse AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page Source: Association of Certified Fraud Examiner’s 2008 Report to the Nation
    22. 22. When To Do It <ul><li>Valuing a business/business interest in connection with litigation/dispute; or measuring economic damages such as lost profits or diminished value; and: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Specific allegations of fraud have been asserted; or </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fraud is suspected </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    23. 23. Divorce Engagements <ul><li>Managing spouse suspected of using the business to secretly acquire personal assets </li></ul><ul><li>Managing spouse suspected of receiving excessive perks or undisclosed income from the business – such amounts must be considered in determining true income for support purposes </li></ul><ul><li>Value of the ownership interest should be determined based on normalized cash flows </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    24. 24. Word of Caution <ul><li>Before undertaking a forensic accounting assignment that may result in someone being accused of fraud, the CPA should consider obtaining statements or other documentation from the client regarding the suspected or alleged fraud </li></ul><ul><li>Such statements are considered the predication or basis for the investigation and will help protect against unwarranted lawsuits </li></ul><ul><li>The engagement letter will probably suffice if it adequately describes the suspected or alleged fraud </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    25. 25. Pre-Engagement Considerations <ul><li>Prior to accepting a forensic accounting engagement, consider the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Confirm competence and experience as required by AICPA Code of Professional Conduct, Rule 201 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Check for potential conflicts of interest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fee constraints vs. time requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Staffing and resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generally high risk engagements </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    26. 26. What To Look For <ul><li>Will generally depend on the type of dispute. </li></ul><ul><li>For example: </li></ul><ul><li>Divorce, Shareholder Disputes, and Bankruptcy cases will generally be concerned about understated assets and revenue and/or overstated liabilities and expenses; whereas </li></ul><ul><li>M&A transactions/lender fraud - will generally be concerned about overstated assets and revenue and/or understated liabilities and expenses </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    27. 27. What To Look For – Red Flags <ul><li>Large checks written to cash (or large number of smaller checks) </li></ul><ul><li>Unusual cash transfers </li></ul><ul><li>Transactions not consistent with the entity’s business </li></ul><ul><li>Unusual related party transactions </li></ul><ul><li>Bank accounts not reconciled timely </li></ul><ul><li>Out of balance subsidiary ledgers </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    28. 28. What To Look For – Red Flags <ul><li>Pressure from investors or lenders to achieve a certain level of profitability and/or financial condition </li></ul><ul><li>Standard of living is unusual relative to known financial resources </li></ul><ul><li>Disorganized operations </li></ul><ul><li>Poor internal controls – easy for management to override </li></ul><ul><li>Unusual and/or unsupported journal entries </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    29. 29. What To Look For – Red Flags <ul><li>High dependence on a relatively small number of customers or suppliers </li></ul><ul><li>Impressive financial results in a poor economy and/or with poor industry performance </li></ul><ul><li>Unusually consistent financial performance and growth </li></ul><ul><li>Disconnect between cash and profitability </li></ul><ul><li>Growing days in AR – higher than industry average </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    30. 30. What To Look For – Healthcare Entities <ul><li>For healthcare providers (entities that bill insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, etc) - watch out for over billing and up-coding practices </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Could substantially overstate revenues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Result in penalties and sanctions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Revenues should be reasonable relative to other similar providers </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    31. 31. What To Look For – Financial Statement Fraud <ul><li>Financial statement related frauds generally have the most impact on valuation and lost profits calculations </li></ul><ul><li>Normally involves one or more of the following: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Overstated revenues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concealed liabilities and expenses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improper asset valuations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improper disclosures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mismatching of revenues and expenses </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    32. 32. Common Methods Used to Overstate Revenues <ul><li>Fictitious revenues – did not actually occur </li></ul><ul><li>Premature revenue recognition – sale not yet complete </li></ul><ul><li>Channel stuffing – customer agrees to accept more product than needed in exchange for substantial discounts or on consignment </li></ul><ul><li>Vender rebates – recognizing incentive rebate income prior to meeting the required terms </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    33. 33. Concealed Liabilities and Expenses <ul><li>Understating liabilities and expenses is one of the most common ways companies manipulate their financial statements </li></ul><ul><li>It is generally easier to omit recording an expense than to falsify revenues </li></ul><ul><li>Concealed liabilities and expenses can be difficult to detect because there is generally no audit trail to follow </li></ul><ul><li>Examples: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Omitting legitimate accounts payable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capitalizing inappropriate expenses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Failure to disclose warranty costs and liabilities </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    34. 34. Timing Differences <ul><li>Recording revenue and/or expenses in improper periods </li></ul><ul><li>Red Flags: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unusual growth in the number of days’ sales in receivables </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unusual decline in the number of days’ purchases in accounts payable </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    35. 35. How To Find It <ul><li>A key objective of the investigation is to gather sufficient relevant data to assist the trier of fact with making a determination regarding the suspected or alleged fraud </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, the investigation/procedures should be planned based on the individual facts and circumstances (i.e. based on the allegations or suspicions) </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    36. 36. Basic Preliminary Steps <ul><li>Determine that proper predication has been established by the client </li></ul><ul><li>Obtain an understanding of the specific fraud suspicions or allegations by discussing the case with the client/attorneys and review any work already performed </li></ul><ul><li>Start gathering and analyzing data </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    37. 37. Gathering and Analyzing Data <ul><li>Relevant data is generally gathered from a combination of methods such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Obtaining and reviewing documents - from client and/or other sources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal interviews </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Observations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Background investigations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Public record inquiries </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    38. 38. Reviewing Documents – Caution <ul><li>Data should be gathered/analyzed with a high degree of skepticism </li></ul><ul><li>Perpetrators may use false documents, often in collusion with others, in an effort to conceal their fraud </li></ul><ul><li>Proper chain of records custody may become an issue especially if documents have been altered or falsified </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Responsibility should be established with client/attorneys at beginning of the investigation </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    39. 39. Interviews <ul><li>The purpose of interviews are to gather additional information from individuals who may have knowledge of the fraud scheme. </li></ul><ul><li>Types of information generally solicited include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Background information on the individual </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any direct knowledge of the fraud suspicions/allegations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Names of others who may have useful knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Documents supporting the interviewee’s responses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Any other information that may be helpful </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    40. 40. Interviews (continued) <ul><li>Open ended questions are generally more productive than closed (“yes or no”) questions – get the interviewee engaged in the conversation </li></ul><ul><li>Start with individuals believed to have only peripheral knowledge of the fraud and progress to those believed to have more knowledge – the primary suspects should generally be interviewed last </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    41. 41. Analytical Procedures <ul><li>Analytical procedures can be useful in finding potential problem areas </li></ul><ul><li>Look for unusual or unexplained trends: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vertical analysis – percentage change from year to year </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Horizontal analysis – compare to prior years and benchmark data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ratio analysis – balance sheet </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Benchmark analysis – financial and operational data if available </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    42. 42. Statistical Sampling <ul><li>Statistical sampling techniques can be used to help establish upper and lower limits of the estimated damages </li></ul><ul><li>More beneficial for “on-book” as opposed to “off-book” frauds </li></ul><ul><li>Sometimes difficult to convince a jury of its accuracy/reliability </li></ul><ul><li>Less expensive than a complete analysis of every potential fraudulent transaction </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    43. 43. Data Mining <ul><li>Data mining can be an effective and efficient way to find potential fraudulent activity </li></ul><ul><li>Queries can be made to identify unusual/abnormal activity such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recurring cash disbursements of the same dollar amount </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Vendors and employees with the same address </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transaction activity occurring at odd times (i.e. weekends or holidays) </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    44. 44. Link Analysis <ul><li>Link Analysis is the process of finding and documenting the common relationships between objects – such as people, companies, transactions, etc </li></ul><ul><li>Key is to find common relationships between important objects and link them together to test/support fraud hypothesis </li></ul><ul><li>Need: mapping or similar software with timeline capabilities </li></ul><ul><li>Drawback: time consuming </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    45. 45. Cash is Still King <ul><li>Profitable companies generate positive net cash flow; whereas companies with low profits should not be generating large amounts of cash for the owners </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There should be a direct relationship between income and cash </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Analyze bank activity and compare to income being reported </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Follow the money – tracing funds generally provides a wealth of useful information, especially for small/medium sized businesses </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    46. 46. What To Do I With It-Documentation <ul><li>SSCS No. 1 requires communication with the client but does not require a written report </li></ul><ul><li>However, if litigation is involved, some type of written report will generally be needed to document the work performed and findings </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Consult with counsel regarding the particular report requirements/disclosures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The report should avoid any conclusions or opinions regarding whether fraud was or was not committed </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    47. 47. Using the Results <ul><li>Depending upon the circumstances, the forensic accounting results should be incorporated into the valuation or damages analysis as appropriate. </li></ul><ul><li>Such incorporation may involve: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Normalization adjustments to the existing financial statements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reconstructing the financial statements all together </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Determining the potential negative implications that the fraud will have on the business (i.e. loss of reputation, employees, etc) </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    48. 48. Using the Results (continued) <ul><li>Query #1: </li></ul><ul><li>Should the discount rate be adjusted to reflect additional risk for companies that have recently been associated with fraud or believed to have been involved in fraudulent activity? </li></ul><ul><li>Even if we think our forensic accounting procedures identified and quantified the problems and the financial statements have been normalized? </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    49. 49. Using the Results (continued) <ul><li>Query #2 </li></ul><ul><li>Can market comps (guideline public companies and/or M&A transaction data) be relied upon as proxies for companies that have recently been associated with fraud? </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    50. 50. Using the Results (continued) <ul><li>Query #3 </li></ul><ul><li>Are companies (or interests in companies) that have been recently associated with fraud as marketable as other companies? </li></ul><ul><li>Most likely there will be a stigma that may make them more difficult to sell </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    51. 51. Tools and Resources <ul><li>Data Mining software </li></ul><ul><ul><li>IDEA: Caseware International (www.caseware.com) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ACL: ACL Services, Ltd. (www.acl.com) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Electronic files </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Caseware Working Papers (document management software) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Case analysis/management software </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CaseMap/TimeMap by LexisNexis (www.lexisnexis.com) </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    52. 52. Tools and Resources <ul><li>Mapping software – such as MindManager by Mind Jet (i.e. www.mindjet.com ) </li></ul><ul><li>AICPA’s Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF) credential ( http://fvs.aicpa.org ) </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    53. 53. Professional Standards <ul><li>Statement on Standards for Consulting Services (SSCS) No. 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Rule 201 of the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Professional competence </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Due professional care </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Planning and supervision </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understanding with the client </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication with the client </li></ul></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    54. 54. Professional Standards <ul><li>Statement on Standards for Valuation Services (SSVS) No. 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Ethics Interpretation No. 101-3, Performance of non-attest services under Rule 101, Independence </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    55. 55. References <ul><li>Consulting Services Practice Aid 96-3, Communicating in Litigation Services: Reports </li></ul><ul><li>Consulting Services Special Report 03-1, Litigation Services and Applicable Professional Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Business Valuation and Forensic and Litigation Services Practice Aid 04-1, Engagement Letters for Litigation Services </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    56. 56. References <ul><li>Business Valuation and Forensic & Litigation Services Section Special Report 06-5, Forensic Procedures and Specialists: Useful Tools and Techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Business Valuation and Forensic & Litigation Services Section Practice Aid 07-1, Forensic Accounting – Fraud Investigations </li></ul><ul><li>Forensic & Valuation Services Section Special Report 08-1, Independence and Objectivity in Performing Forensic and Valuation Services </li></ul>AIC PA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    57. 57. References <ul><li>FVS Section Special Report 09-1, Introduction to Civil Litigation Services </li></ul>AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page
    58. 58. Questions? W. James Lloyd, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFE, ASA [email_address] (865) 673-0844 www.pyapc.com AICPA National Business Valuation Conference November 15 – 17, 2009 Page

    ×