Mayflower Share Discussion Threads

[scribbler101] 27/10/2006 16:28

There's an announcement today in the Times (p82) about a revised scheme for shareholders. Anyone any idea what it's about?

[scribbler101] 27/10/2006 16:28

There's an announcement today in the Times (p82) about a revised scheme for shareholders. Anyone any idea what it's about?

[hvs] 14/10/2006 10:17

Thats what they call white collar looking after another white collar.

[nipper33] 14/10/2006 08:21

Stange that all this was going on and went completely without knowledge from the top.Makes you wonder what happens then at all the 'closed'management meetings.Can you remember what the explanation for raising the £60m was.Funny how time covers all.

[soysoy] 12/10/2006 12:12

PwC memo: Mayflower in 'danger of breaching covenants,'

Penny Sukhraj, Accountancy Age, 11 Oct 2006
AIDB probes covenants issue, which regulators say should have alerted PwC to the difficulty of Mayflower continuing as a going concern.



A member of the PwC team auditing Mayflower made a note on reports saying that the company was in 'danger of breaching covenants.'

The note was disclosed in hearings on Tuesday as a partner from the firm took the stand.

The firm should have indicated that there were doubts about Mayflower's ability to continue as a going concern in audit reports, the complaint says.

PwC partner Peter Harvey stepped into the witness box this week; the first of many from the firm set to be quizzed publicly by the AIDB.

Harvey was quizzed about the warnings about covenants that PwC might have picked up.

Patrick Lawrence QC, for the AIDB, directed Harvey to transcripts of an interview, held earlier with AIDB executive counsel Cameron Scott.

Quoting the transcript, Lawrence pointed out that Harvey told Scott that when it came to the year end audit, the going concern aspect was dependent upon whether or not the Group could renew its financing facilities.

'So one can see your second in command had that point in mind some time in early February for that was the date of the note?' Lawrence said, referring to the memo.

Harvey did not concede the point, saying that a significant factor that reassured the audit team that Mayflower could continue as a going concern was the raising, at the time, of £60m.



Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

del.icio.us Digg this reddit!


Permalink for this story | View trackbacks to this story
Trackback URL:

[scribbler101] 11/10/2006 11:52

bearing or bareing?

[scribbler101] 11/10/2006 11:30

what happened to post 1032 ?

[ziggo2] 11/10/2006 04:11

Find the best breaking stock news right here. This great find features the most up-to-date stock picks for your portfolio as well as amazing insight into stocks that are on the move. Impressive track record, no junk mail. Quite a find.

[Abuse team] 11/10/2006 00:38

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 11/10/2006 00:34

Post removed by ADVFN

[oppo] 05/10/2006 11:09

PI's will get nothing,sweet fa. Just the fat cats will/have got the cash.

[nipper33] 04/10/2006 06:58

Its early days still

[nk2000] 03/10/2006 23:59

Is there any hope of getting anything from this company, either through dissolution or through this legal action by AIDB and/ or Mayflower Shareholders Action Group ? Kindly advise. A bit out of touch, and still crying over my investment....

[tufts] 03/10/2006 12:22

Couldn't agree more. It is a farce. They should have been stopped ages before they were. It is a worry that these sort of companies sell shares to people, without giving the true facts about their trading situation. Still can't understand why the shares went up just before Christmas. Was this to make the company look good ??????

They will all get away with it, and live to enjoy their big fat pensions.

[hvs] 30/9/2006 18:28

Its all ONE BIG FARCE No Action against anyone.

Why is the C.E.O not being held to account, where were the other directors ?

[soysoy] 30/9/2006 14:08

News - Headlines


28/09/2006

Mayflower FD 'too slow' to highlight profit shortfall

Donnelly scrutinised in first AIDB public tribunal




The actions of former Mayflower finance director David Donnelly were scrutinised yesterday by the public tribunal investigating the accounting treatments of the failed bus maker.

In the first public tribunal within the UK accountancy profession, Patrick Lawrence, QC for the Accountancy Investigation & Discipline Board (AIDB), set out the case against Donnelly in a hushed room at the International Dispute Resolution Centre on Fleet Street.

Lawrence argued that Donnelly had been too slow to inform Mayflower's board, bank and auditor, PwC, that the company had overstated profits to the tune of £5.8m at the Falkirk premises of its subsidiary TransBus, leaving a shortfall in the company's accounts for the year 2003/04. As a result the AIDB claims Donnelly fell short of the standard reasonably expected of a member of ACCA.

Big Four firm PricewaterhouseCoopers is also appearing at the tribunal to answer a complaint from the AIDB that it failed to recognise or act upon concerns about Mayflower's ability to continue in business.

Mayflower collapsed in March with a £20m 'black hole'. Some parts of the business were successfully sold off, but 300 staff members were made redundant.

Both Donnelly and PwC deny the complaints against them. PwC has described the complaints as 'misconceived'.


Similar articles
AIDB judicial microscope poses questions across the board
Key Mayflower witness 'in South America'
Mayflower tribunal: first test for AIDB
TransBus financial controller faces AIDB complaints
AIDB confirms dates for Mayflower test case


AIDB drops invoicing charges against PricewaterhouseCoopers

Alex Hawkes, Accountancy Age, 28 Sep 2006
AIDB drops complaint this week that firm should have conducted a 'walk-through' procedural test on the invoicing process of Mayflower subsidiary Transbus






PricewaterhouseCoopers is in the clear over charges that it knew and failed to stop an unusual invoicing practice at collapsed bus manufacturer Mayflower, after the Accountancy Investigation Discipline Board dropped the complaint.

The UK's largest audit firm was facing complaints from the AIDB over its audit of the company, which collapsed amidst suggestions of a £20m accounting black hole.

The AIDB dropped the complaint this week that the firm should have conducted a 'walk-through' procedural test on the invoicing process of Mayflower subsidiary Transbus.

The subsidiary had been holding back cash from its banks in order to prop up the company's ailing cashflow, according to regulators.

The dropping of the complaint follows on the heels of the panel's dismissal of charges of dishonesty levelled at Transbus's former financial controller Ian Shelton. On Monday, the panel dismissed those complaints, which had revolved around suggestions that Shelton kept quiet about the invoicing practices.

PwC had also been accused of failing to express concern as to Mayflower's ability to continue as a going concern in relation to its 2002 accounts, a complaint that is ongoing.

Various indicators, including suggestions that the banks would not renew lending facilities to the company, should have persuaded the firm to include warnings in its audit report, the tribunal has been told.

The tribunal is the first public outing for the AIDB, and the first time any firm has seen complaints heard publicly. Under the regulatory regime run by the Joint Disciplinary Scheme, private tribunals were followed by public reports.

AIDB executive counsel Cameron Scott is also currently investigating the behaviour of Deloitte in its auditing of MG Rover. The body, part of the Financial Reporting Council, regulates qualified accountants, and has the power to issue fines and to disqualify people from the profession.

Mayflower FD David Donnelly is also accused of failing to inform PwC and the Mayflower board of dire shortfalls which existed at the Falkirk premises of the business.

Both PwC and Donnelly deny the complaints. The case continues.

[nipper33] 19/9/2006 06:53

So whats happening now?

[soysoy] 17/9/2006 07:59

PwC to face first-ever public tribunal
Regulator to hear complaints against firm

AccountancyAge.com, Accountancy Age, 21 Aug 2006


Big Four firm PricewaterhouseCoopers will be the first accountancy firm subject to a public tribunal when it hears complaints made against it by the Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board on 25 September.

The open tribunal is the first to be convened since the AIDB was set up after the Enron scandal.

The complaints relate to PwC's work at Mayflower the failed busmaker, which collapsed in 2004 after the disclosure of accounting irregularities at its TransBus division.

The first complaint complaints concerns PwC's 2002 audit of TransBus accounts and the second relates to its 2002 audit of Mayflower and disclosures 'relating to the company's ability to continue as a going concern' beyond the end of 2003, the FT reported.

[scribbler101] 14/9/2006 15:57

Accountant in dock at first AIDB public tribunal
Ian Shelton faces charge of dishonesty

Penny Sukhraj, Accountancy Age 11 Sep 2006
ACCA member Ian Shelton was today accused of being complicit in a fraudulent invoice practice at Transbus International Limited today.

The Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board kicked off its first public hearing today, at which the complaints were laid.

Part one of a two-day hearing saw the financial controller take the stand, as the AIDB accused Shelton of being dishonest.

Shelton argued in defence that he acted under the instruction of senior managers, whom he assumed had 'clearance' to withhold money the company had collected on behalf of the bank, in exchange for goods delivered.

The company, a subsidiary of listed Mayflower Plc, had a non-recourse invoice discounting facility with HSBC known as 'MIDFES' – the terms of which were subject to annual renewal letters, the tribunal heard.

The arrangement with HSBC amounted to Transbus having the right to claim for monies for manufactured goods delivered to customers.

The bank paid this claim out to Transbus, which in turn collected the customer-owed debt on behalf of the bank.

Shelton admitted that as financial controller at the Guildford premises of the company from April 2001, he was aware that a junior employee had submitted falsified spreadsheets to the bank, to project that customers had paid on dates later than their actual payment dates.

This facilitated the practice of withholding the money from the bank and was in breach of the MIDFES facility.

Shelton signed a claim form, submitted to HSBC, for payment of over £3m in December 2003, despite the fact that customers had not been invoiced for the goods.

In addition those invoices which related to the claim were for goods that had either not yet been manufactured or not delivered by the time the claim was submitted.

HSBC was unaware of this and paid the claim.

Shelton admitted before the tribunal that he never directly checked with the managers as to their 'special clearance' he assumed they had from the bank, allowing the practice to continue.

He also admitted that - without the bank's knowledge of paying for goods which were not completely manufactured or delivered – the practice amounted to dishonesty and misconduct.

When asked why he did not report the matter to authorities more senior than himself, or even the auditors, Shelton said: 'I deeply regret it... I should have reported it. I wrongfully hoped the David Berry (former senior manager in the finance division) would report it,' he said.

Patrick Lawrence, representing the AIDB, said the evidence showed that there was no doubt of Shelton's complicity and serious misconduct.

The case continues tomorrow.

Permalink to this story
www.accountancyage.com/2163984

[crazy russian] 14/9/2006 07:55

I bet they will not
he went to all the usual schools

[nipper33] 13/9/2006 21:44

Oh but they will