The Case of Lancaster ElectronicsTypes of Disclosure Essay

The Case of Lancaster ElectronicsTypes of Disclosure - Essay Example As an auditor he is supposed to give a report to give direction to the management of Lancaster Electronics. The payment of the dividend, year 2009 was as per the policy, but 2010 payment was halted and resumed in the first quarter of 2011. The information should have been reflected in the equity’s statement. Grinaker & Barr (1965) argued that changes in the equity payment should always be explained briefly in the footnote of equity statement. In 2010, the dividend was retained to finance the equipment for the new plant. The amount was neither reflected in the income statement as expenses nor in cash flow statement as investing activities. An auditor has to be certain that cash generated and spent can be accounted. Lancaster electronics received a loan that was to be repaid within a timeframe of ten years. The loan is a long term liability since it has to be repaid for more than one year. This should have been reflected in the balance sheet as long term liability. A ten year loan repayment period is a huge chunk amount of money. Therefore, the report of an auditor will not represent the actual state of the company. The agreement between the lender and Lancaster, of dividend payment, should not exceed the net income is contrary to how the firm used to treat preferred stocks. A brief explanation should be attached at the footnote of the equity statement. The staff auditor’s reported stated there was no restriction on the retained earning as at 31 Dec 2011. The information should be in equity statement so that other auditor can make a report that is accurate and reliable. Failure to include that information an auditor will a make wrong conclusion regarding dividend payment. Lancaster Electronics has a new manufacturing plant that costs $ 600,000. However, the lease is neither reflecting on the balance sheet nor income statement. An increase in asset volume and value makes the company stable. If a company does not present its entire asset on the

Studying a case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Studying a - Case Study Example The paper discusses Trune’s accusation with a view of illustrating the dissenting opinion that there was no false imprisonment. The accusations of Trune that the farmer intended to confine him within fixed boundaries do not sufficiently prove the crime of false imprisonment because the farmer did not lock him in the firm house. Because the farmer did not lock the farm house, it can thus be argued that there was no false imprisonment because Trune’s freedom was not limited at all. This case can be compared with the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case in which the plaintiffs were asked by the accused to leave before the occurrence of the events which led to the legal suit. This illustrates that in the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case, the freedoms of the plaintiffs was not violated. The case led to a ruling of the appeal court that favored Wuennenberg because sufficient evidence suggested that there was no false imprisonment of the plaintiff (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 1). The actions of the farmer were motivated by the need to protect his farm from intruders and trespassers and there was no intention of leading to the confinement of the plaintiff otherwise he would have locked him in the firm yard. In the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case, the plaintiffs admitted that they were not intimidated neither threatened by the accused (Supreme Court of Wisconsin 2). On a counter argument, Trune admits that he stayed in the firm house because he feared the possible outcome of the farmer’s actions, which does not adequately substantiate the claims that his life was in immediate danger. The actions of the farmer were inn ordinary sense harmless and the plaintiff has no real evidence to prove that the farmer put him in unbearable danger. Trune’s arguments however differ with the Herbst v. Wuennenberg case on the trespass issue is compared between the two cases. Like in the case of Herbst and the other plaintiffs, Trune does not defend his reason for being on the farmer’s field.