Financial Reporting Release
Recent Issues in Financial Reporting
January 2007
In this Issue
Students of World War II will recall that immediately after
war was declared not all that much happened – there was
a period of such calm that the war was called “the phony
war” or the “bore war”. Then, of course, all hell broke loose.
It wouldn’t be quite fair to say that we’re in the phony war
stage in terms of accounting developments over the last
few months. While no accounting bombshells have been
dropped since our last issue of Financial Reporting Release,
some things have happened that should make you sit
up and take notice. How well the Accounting Standards
Board (AcSB) is faring in implementing its plan to introduce
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) into
Canada … New ways of assessing the significance of errors
in financial statements … A definition of fair value from
the US that, sooner or later, one way or another, is going
to affect Canadian GAAP … The beginning of the end for
proportionate consolidation of joint ventures … Proposals
to improve the accounting by income trusts … A report
card from the OSC. No, not quite a phony war. A bore war,
perhaps? Well now, that’s entirely up to you.
Contents
You now have the option of
receiving our publications
by email, hardcopy by mail,
or both. Please let us know
your choice by accessing
www.pwc.com/ca/subscribe.
3
3
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
10
The Future of Canadian GAAP
Materiality
Fair Value Measurements
Proportionate Consolidation of Joint Ventures
Income Trusts
Financial Instrument and Capital Disclosures
OSC Report Card
SOX South
Emerging Issues Committee (“EIC”) Abstracts
Appendix: Income Trusts – The Commentary/The
Exposure Draft
The Future of
Canadian GAAP
The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.
Paul Valéry
In the past few issues of Financial Reporting Release, we’ve told you about the
AcSB’s plans to (1) require Canadian publicly accountable enterprises to apply
IFRS; and (2) consider establishing a kinder and gentler alternative GAAP option
for all other Canadian entities. Here’s a brief report on the AcSB’s progress in
implementing its plan. Keep in mind, we’re in early days yet.
• In December 2006, the AcSB announced it will set a definite date by March 31,
2008 for changing over to IFRS, after reviewing the IFRS readiness of the
country and a quick check to make sure that IFRS is still a club worth joining.
2011 remains the most likely date, despite the urging of the International
Accounting Standards Board (IASB) that Canada adopt IFRS in 2009.
• The AcSB is in the midst of thrashing out exactly which kinds of entities will
have to change over to IFRS. If we read the tea leaves, entities that plan to
issue or have issued securities in a public market, banks, insurance companies,
securities broker/dealers, pension funds, mutual funds and investment banking
entities are cooked – they almost certainly will have to change over when the
time comes. The answer is less clear for cooperative organizations, but our bet
is they’ll be caught too. Everyone else will have the choice of changing or not.
Look for an exposure draft on a proposed definition of “publicly accountable
enterprise” to be issued soon.
• The AcSB will not give entities the option of adopting IFRS early. If you’re
cheesed off about this and you’re a public company, you’ve only got one
choice – plead with your friendly securities regulator to allow you to adopt
IFRS now instead of Canadian GAAP. If you’re a private company, you’ve
got no options.
• AcSB staff will issue an Invitation to Comment on an optional alternative basis
of reporting for non-publicly accountable enterprises. The invitation will set
out staff research findings on user needs, and ask for input regarding several
possible approaches the AcSB could pursue. It’ll be in the mail in the first
quarter of 2007.
Observation. If you’re potentially affected, now is the time to start thinking
about what life would be like under an IFRS regime. Maybe even start
crafting an implementation plan. The obvious place to begin is a review
of the CICA’s Canadian GAAP-IFRS comparisons to identify any relevant
differences. Whatever you do, don’t let the deadline creep up on you.
Materiality
We are tied down to a language that makes up in obscurity what it
lacks in style.
Tom Stoppard – Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead
In September 2006, the SEC released Staff Accounting Bulletin 108, Considering
the Effects of Prior Year Misstatements when Quantifying Misstatements in
Current Year Financial Statements. It requires entities to determine whether any
errors in financial statements are material using both the rollover and the iron
curtain method.
Rollover method? Iron curtain method? Let us explain.
Financial Reporting Release 3
Accounting standards everywhere generally say that you don’t have to go to the
bother of correcting an error in a set of financial statements if you think leaving
the error uncorrected wouldn’t influence or change a user’s decision, i.e. it’s
“immaterial”. Applying this concept is sort of like the “no harm, no foul” theory
in sports – of course, players don’t get to call fouls on themselves.
Assessing whether an error is material includes quantifying its effect on the
financial statements. In practice, entities usually make these assessments using
one of two approaches – the “rollover” method and the “iron curtain” method.
The two methods differ primarily in their treatment of misstatements that affect
the opening balance sheet for the current year.
Under the rollover method, opening balance sheet errors that “roll over” into the
current year’s income statement are treated as misstatements of current year’s
income. For example, let’s assume a company understated expenses and related
liabilities in error last year by $1,000,000. The error was thought not to be material
and was not corrected. Instead, the company corrected the error by charging the
$1,000,000 against income for the current year. Using the rollover method, an
accountant would say that the current year’s income statement is understated by
$1,000,000 because it includes a correction for an error that relates to the prior
year’s financial statements. If, for some reason, the $1,000,000 understatement
of current year’s income was material, the prior year’s financial statements would
have to be restated. Most companies in Canada use this approach.
Under the iron curtain method, the existence of immaterial errors made in the
prior year can never result in a restatement of the prior year’s financial statements
– it’s as if an iron curtain had slammed down on those statements, preventing any
changes. By default, therefore, the correction of the prior year’s errors is done by
adjusting the current year’s financial statements. To illustrate – in our example,
an accountant using the iron curtain method would say that charging $1,000,000
against current year’s income to correct last year’s error is just fine, thank you
very much, no misstatement here. Indeed, if for some reason the error was not
corrected this way, the current year’s income would be overstated.
What SAB 108 says is, use both the rollover method and the iron curtain
method to quantify misstatements. If applying either method results in a material
misstatement for the current year, correct it by restating previously issued
financial statements. SAB 108 must be applied to annual financial statements
for years ending on or after November 15, 2006. There are special “amnesty
provisions” in the transitional provisions that allow a registrant to adopt SAB 108
by simply adjusting opening retained earnings of the current year, i.e. it is not
necessary to restate prior years’ financial statements.
Observation. SAB 108 is the SEC’s interpretation of US GAAP.
Therefore, technically, it must be applied only by Canadian companies
having US GAAP reporting responsibilities and only then to their US
GAAP numbers. However, SEC staff strongly encourage Canadian SEC
registrants to apply SAB 108 when preparing Canadian GAAP financial
statements. If you don’t, the SEC will encourage you, equally strongly,
to have a brief chat with them explaining why not. We assume Canadian
securities regulators would have a similar view. Note, however, that the
amnesty provisions available in applying US GAAP are not available
under Canadian GAAP – restating prior years’ financial statements and
making appropriate disclosure of the nature of the adjustment often may
be necessary. Correcting an error in a US GAAP footnote, but not in a
registrant’s primary Canadian GAAP financial statements, would be like
standing naked in front of a bull and waving a red flag. Sure, you might
not be gored, but do you really want to take the chance? Anyway, who
wants to see you naked?
4 Financial Reporting Release
Fair Value
Measurements
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Groucho Marx
The concept of “fair value” is like the concept of “time” – everybody knows what
it is until somebody asks for a definition. Then you get a lot of shuffling of feet,
throat clearing and “gee, you know what it is”.
The FASB is the latest in a long line to try and enlighten the masses about the
meaning of fair value, issuing a new accounting standard, FAS 157, Fair Value
Measurements, in September 2006. In essence, this standard says, “If you’ve got
to record something at fair value, or disclose its fair value in the notes, this is how
you go about calculating fair value”. The standard also requires an entity to make
certain disclosures in the footnotes to the financial statements about the quality
of fair value estimates.
The highlights:
• In concept, fair value is what you’d get from selling an asset, before transaction
costs. It’s not what you’d pay to acquire the asset. While these two amounts
usually are the same, they can differ (e.g. when you buy in one market and sell
in another).
• The most reliable measure of the fair value of an asset is its market price. If
there is no market for the asset, you should estimate fair value using whatever
relevant market data that’s available – quoted market prices for similar assets,
for instance, or other market rates or prices that you know will affect the value
(e.g. for loans and certain other financial assets, interest rates, default rates,
etc.). If there is no market data, make your best estimate using the information
that you have. FAS 157 refers to the latter estimates as “hypothetical
constructs”. Cynics call them guesses.
• Forget that you own the asset. Any special information that only you know
about an asset, which might impact the fair value of the asset if widely known,
doesn’t count. Put yourselves in the shoes of buyers who have no inside
knowledge.
• The fair value of a liability is the amount that you’d have to pay someone else
with a similar credit standing to assume the liability. The bit about “similar credit
rating” is important. If your credit rating drops, the fair value of your liabilities
will go down. Many think this result has just got to be wrong – does it make
sense to report that your liabilities are falling because the risk that you can’t pay
them goes up? Yes, shouts the FASB.
• There should be disclosure of fair value measurements at each reporting
date, including how hard or soft the estimates are. For this purpose, fair value
measurements fall into three categories: Level 1, where fair value is the quoted
market price of the item in an active market; Level 2, where fair value is derived
from observable market data; and Level 3, where fair value is partly or entirely
a “hypothetical construct”. Level 3 is a kind of toxic warning label – use at your
own risk.
FAS 157 is effective for fiscal years beginning on or after November 15, 2007 and
interim periods within those years. It would be naïve to think that FAS 157 won’t
find its way into Canadian GAAP. The IASB already has undertaken a project to
consider adopting FAS 157. The AcSB, consistent with its policy to adopt IFRS,
already has announced that it will be doing whatever the IASB does. Sooner or
later, therefore, we’re going to be calculating fair values under this standard. Of
Financial Reporting Release 5
course, “sooner” will be 2008 for Canadian companies that also have US GAAP
reporting responsibilities.
Observation. We suspect the formulation of a comprehensive method for
determining fair value will encourage standards-setters to substantially
expand the use of fair value accounting. What’s the point of a getting a
shiny new car if you’re not going to drive it anywhere?
Proportionate
Consolidation of
Joint Ventures
It Don’t Mean A Thing (If It Ain’t Got That Swing)
Song by Duke Ellington
We’ve used proportionate consolidation to account for interests in joint ventures
for a good long while now. Under this method, each venturer reports its pro rata
share of each of the assets and liabilities, and related revenues, expenses and
cash flows of the venture in its own financial statements. It’s accounting’s version
of splitting the atom.
Life, as we know it, is going to change. In September 2006, the AcSB announced it
was planning to get rid of proportionate consolidation. When this becomes reality,
a venturer will have to account for its interests as it would for other investments over
which it has significant influence – using the equity method. The only exception is if
a venturer owns a direct interest in the assets of a venture, such as a 50% undivided
ownership interest in real estate. In this case, the venturer is supposed to account for
the asset it owns – an undivided interest in property. While this sounds an awful lot
like proportionate consolidation, technically it isn’t. Trust us.
The AcSB is proposing this change in response to a decision by the IASB to give
proportionate consolidation the heave ho for IFRS. We expect the AcSB to issue
an exposure draft in 2007 and the elimination of proportionate consolidation to
become effective in 2008.
Observation. Many believe that proportionate consolidation provides
more meaningful information than equity accounting. Indeed, the
Accounting Standards Board was so persuaded by this view that it
required the use of proportionate consolidation for joint ventures over
10 years ago. The trouble is that this method just doesn’t square up
with basic financial statement concepts. Under these concepts, an
enterprise should be reporting in its balance sheet only those assets that
the enterprise controls. A venturer that owns 50% of a separate joint
venture entity doesn’t control 50% of the assets of the venture; it shares
control over 100% of the assets with the other venturers. 10 years ago,
it was much easier for a standards-setter to set aside financial statement
concepts in favour of what it thought was a better financial statement
presentation. These days, however, it don’t mean a thing if it ain’t got that
theoretical swing.
Income Trusts
What are we going to do, what are we going to do, what are we going to do!
The Magic School Bus – Kids’ TV show
Parents of older children might recall a kids’ TV show called the “Magic School
Bus”. The show involved a class of kids taking trips on a magic bus that allowed
all sorts of wonderful things to happen – trips through outer space, a blood
vessel, a block of wood, etc., etc. Anyway, one of the kids in the class was
Arnold, an annoying little twerp, who, whenever the class got in a pickle, would
whine shrilly “What are we going to do, what are we going to do, what are we
6 Financial Reporting Release
going to do?” In recent years, that question has been asked repeatedly about the
quality of financial reporting by income trusts. Many have expressed concerns.
Others, disgust. Fingers have been pointed, often at the CICA, for not providing
explicit guidance for income trusts.
The CICA responded late in 2006. First, it released a non-authoritative commentary
on how income trusts can improve their GAAP financial statements. Second,
the CICA’s Canadian Performance Reporting Board issued an exposure draft
on how income trusts should define and discuss “distributable cash flow” in
the Management’s Discussion and Analysis. We summarize and comment on
the major points of the Commentary and Exposure Draft in the Appendix to this
newsletter.
Financial
Instrument
and Capital
Disclosures
There are books of which the backs and covers are by far the best parts.
Charles Dickens
In December 2006, the AcSB issued new standards on the footnote disclosures
an entity should make regarding financial instruments as well as capital. These
standards are effective for interim and annual periods starting October 1, 2007.
Observation. These standards may be more challenging than at first
glance. Stay tuned.
OSC Report
Card
When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall,
Then how should I begin
To spit out all the butt-ends of my days and ways?
The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock – T.S. Eliot
Every year, the Corporate Finance Branch of the Ontario Securities Commissions
issues a report which summarizes the results of its continuous disclosure and
prospectus reviews of issuers. Here’s a rundown of some of the more significant
findings.
• In 58% of the cases, the OSC required material improvements, either the
refiling of existing documents or prospective accounting or disclosure changes
in future filings.
• With respect to accounting and general disclosure issues:
- Unsatisfactory accounting policy disclosure
- Inappropriate recognition in arrangements involving multiple deliverables
- Not identifying intangible assets acquired on the purchase of a business
- Failure to assess goodwill for impairment despite potential indicators of loss
- Improper measurement and inadequate disclosure of related party
transactions
- Not accounting for modifications to stock option plans properly
- Relying on US GAAP or IFRS not consistent with Canadian GAAP
- Improper use of valuation allowances relating to income tax assets.
Financial Reporting Release 7
• With respect to MD&A disclosures:
- Simply repeating financial statement disclosure without meaningful
information or analysis
- Poor liquidity analysis
- No quantitative discussion about factors leading to changes in revenues
or expenses
- No conclusion on the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures
- When non-GAAP financial measures are used, failing to identify the
measure as not being GAAP; provide equal prominence with the most
directly comparable GAAP measurement; or explain why the non-GAAP
measure is meaningful.
The report also addressed other topics such as executive compensation
disclosure, errors and restatements and various prospectus issues.
Observation. Remember, if the OSC doesn’t like what you’re doing and
requires a restatement, they’ll stick your name on their “wall of shame”
website for all to see.
SOX South
Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts
can be counted.
Albert Einstein
No issue of Financial Reporting Release would be complete without at least some
discussion of the latest developments affecting implementation of the SarbanesOxley Act (SOX) in the US. SOX was issued in response to Enron and other
accounting scandals that shook confidence in the quality of financial reporting by
public companies in the markets.
The latest development is that the SEC and the Public Company Accounting
Oversight Board (PCAOB), the US auditor oversight body, are proposing
amendments to the existing requirements in order to promote a principles-based,
top-down, risk-weighted approach for evaluating internal controls over financial
reporting. The thinking behind the proposals is that this new approach will allow
companies and their auditors to appropriately tailor their evaluations to the nature
and the size of the company, making the work more efficient. The proposals are
in response to storms of protest that the existing requirements were overkill and
resulted in costs that were way out of line with the benefits.
The SEC proposes the following basic five-step approach for management:
1. Use judgment to identify those areas that are both material and pose a
significant risk to reliable financial reporting.
2. Identify those controls that address these risks.
3. Gather and analyze evidence about the operation of those controls.
4. Assess whether any identified control deficiencies are material weaknesses.
5. Document assessments appropriately (in some cases, limited documentation
may suffice).
Similar changes are being proposed by the PCAOB for auditors.
Observation. We always have supported a principles-based, top-down,
risk-weighted approach for evaluating internal controls over financial
reporting and are encouraged by the proposals.
8 Financial Reporting Release
Emerging
Issues
Committee
(“EIC”)
Abstracts
EIC 103, Related Party Transactions – Meaning of Substantive Change and
Measurement of Change in a Transfer of Ownership Interests. The Abstract
was modified in November 2006 to confirm that the transfer of an asset to an
entity being consolidated under the special rules for variable interest entities
(“VIE”) represents a transfer to a controlled entity.
Observation. While EIC 103 addresses a rather fine technical issue,
it also establishes an important principle – if an enterprise has to
consolidate a VIE, any transaction between the enterprise and the VIE
qualifies as a “related party transaction”. This is important because there
are special accounting rules for related party transactions that govern
their measurement and disclosure.
EIC 163, Determining the Variability To Be Considered in Applying AcG-15.
This Abstract clarifies what is meant by the terms “variable interests” and
“variability” in determining whether an entity is a VIE and whether an enterprise
must consolidate a VIE. It is effective the first day of the first interim or annual
reporting period beginning on or after January 1, 2007, however, an entity does
not have to revisit any previous VIE consolidation decisions unless arrangements
or ownership interests are revised in some way.
Observation. Be careful with this one. Under this Abstract, what counts
as a variable interest and variability will differ from situation to situation,
depending on the design and purpose of the structure. Almost everyone
is going to have to change the way they make VIE assessments under
these new requirements.
D60, Definition of Costs and Fees in Section 3855. Under existing GAAP,
costs and fees relating to the modification or exchange of debt instruments can
or must be deferred in certain circumstances by adjusting the carrying value of
the loan. This Abstract provides a definition of “fees” and “costs” to ensure that
the amount deferred or expensed in the particular situation is appropriate.
D62, Convertible Debt Instruments. This draft Abstract replaces EIC 158,
Convertible Debt Instruments and applies to entities that have adopted CICA
Handbook Section 3855, Financial Instruments – Recognition and Measurement.
Observation. This is required reading for accountants and auditors
dealing with the new financial instrument rules in Handbook Section
3855. The Abstract goes far beyond interpreting the application of these
rules to convertible debt instruments. Perhaps a more appropriate
description of the Abstract is that it provides general guidance on
accounting for debt instruments under Section 3855 using convertible
debt as an example.
Financial Reporting Release 9
Income Trusts
What are we going to do, what are we going to do, what are we going to do!
The Magic School Bus – Kids’ TV show
Parents of older children might recall a kids’ TV show called the “Magic School
Bus”. The show involved a class of kids taking trips on a magic bus that allowed
all sorts of wonderful things to happen – trips through outer space, a blood
vessel, a block of wood, etc., etc. Anyway, one of the kids in the class was
Arnold, an annoying little twerp, who, whenever the class got in a pickle, would
whine shrilly “What are we going to do, what are we going to do, what are we
going to do?” In recent years, that question has been asked repeatedly about the
quality of financial reporting by income trusts. Many have expressed concerns.
Others, disgust. Fingers have been pointed, often at the CICA, for failing to
provide more specific guidance for income trusts.
The CICA responded late in 2006. First, it released a non-authoritative
commentary authored by one of their staff members on how income trusts
can improve their GAAP financial statements. Second, the CICA’s Canadian
Performance Reporting Board issued an exposure draft on how income trusts
should define and discuss “distributable cash flow” in Management’s Discussion
and Analysis (MDA). We summarize and comment below on some of the major
points in the Commentary and the Exposure Draft.
The Commentary –
• Identifying the source of cash distributions is essential to a proper
understanding of the nature and extent of distributions. For example, some
trusts borrow to maintain distributions; the borrowed component of any
distribution is clearly not income. Disclosure of the source of cash distributions
is necessary to comply with Section 1400, General Standards of Financial
Statement Presentation.
Observation. Identifying the source of the cash used to make a
distribution often will be an exercise in futility. In many cases, it will only
be possible to link where the cash came from to pay an expense, buy an
asset or make a distribution to unit holders by using arbitrary “ordering”
conventions.
• The presentation of “cumulative earnings” and “cumulative distributions” as
separate items in the equity section of the balance sheet is misleading since
these are not balances in and of themselves, but rather components of equity.
The presentation of equity that provides the most relevant information for a trust
is illustrated by the requirements applicable to corporations, as set out in Section
3251. This is because the presentation responds to the repeatedly expressed
desire of users to compare capital contributions to retained earnings.
Observation. Using a traditional corporate model, a trust usually would
wind up showing the capital originally contributed by unit holders and a
deficit in its balance sheet, being the excess of cumulative distributions
over cumulative earnings. The approach of showing cumulative
distributions and cumulative earnings was developed in response to
the concern that all distributions are on account of income, i.e. that no
portion of the investor’s capital had been returned to investors by the
distributions. In the corporate world, dividends rarely exceed income and
this is not an issue. We take the point that the cumulative earnings and
distributions are not balances, but we do not believe that this fact, in and
of itself, renders the balance sheet misleading.
10 Financial Reporting Release
• The Handbook rules will be amended in 2007 to specifically require that when
a trust distributes cash in accordance with a trust agreement, it must disclose
the terms and conditions that apply to the determination of the distribution,
the total cash distribution and the extent to which the distribution is nondiscretionary. It would be good practice to comply with the 2007 proposed
requirements in the 2006 financial statements, even though technically not
required.
Observation. We agree. In the past, trusts often have attempted to meet
existing disclosure requirements by providing a tabular reconciliation
from cash flow from operations or from net income to distributions. This
should no longer be done.
• There should be appropriate disclosure of terms and conditions of default
covenants, including quantitative information about significant covenants.
Observation. We think what the Commentary is getting at here is that
trusts should disclose how much cushion they have under existing
covenants because of the possible impact a default would have on
distributions.
• The EIC will provide guidance on the accounting implications of the Federal
government’s recently announced changes to the taxable status of trusts.
Until the EIC provides specific guidance, however, trusts should, as a minimum,
disclose the net difference between the tax basis and reported amounts of the
trust’s assets and liabilities.
Observation. We all know that the market cap on trusts dropped like a
stone as the result of the government’s announced changes. This could
trigger a write-down of any goodwill reported by a trust in their 2006
financial statements. Further, trusts will have to recognize a deferred
income tax liability in 2007 (taking the four year tax holiday into account)
if the government’s decision is substantively enacted. This liability will be
the difference between the accounting and tax basis of their net assets,
which is expected to reverse when the trust becomes taxable. As we
go to press, the EIC is considering whether any goodwill impairment
loss recognized by a trust in 2006 should be reduced by the deferred
tax liability set up in 2007, so as to avoid a double count. While we
expect that the EIC will decide in favour of avoiding the double count,
consultation with professional advisors is recommended. We agree
with the Commentary that there should be appropriate disclosure of the
difference between the tax basis and reported amounts of a trust’s assets
and liabilities pending substantive enactment.
The Exposure Draft –
• Trusts should use a standardized measure of Distributable Cash Flow as the
basis for MDA discussions.
Observation. We agree. A major criticism of accounting by trusts is
that different trusts use different, sometimes self-serving, measures of
distributable cash flow. Note that distributable cash flow is a non-GAAP
measure and should not be reported in GAAP financial statements.
• Trusts should specify whether they comply with the requirements of the
Canadian Performance Reporting Board in their calculations and disclosures
of distributable cash flow.
Observation. We agree.
Financial Reporting Release 11
• The measure of distributable income should be called “Distributable Cash from
Operations”. This represents cash flow from operating activities as reported
in the GAAP financial statements. It excludes discontinued operations, net of
management’s best estimate of the portion of this cash flow to be retained
to fund capital and other expenditures necessary to maintain its productive
capacity, long-term obligations such as pensions, or to comply with restrictions
on distributions. No other adjustments are permitted to GAAP cash flow from
operating activities. There should be appropriate discussion of the adjustments
to cash flow from operating activities.
Observation. We will consider these recommendations and respond to
the Board. We urge all affected parties to do the same.
For more information…
This newsletter has been prepared for the clients and friends of
PricewaterhouseCoopers by our Professional, Technical, Risk and Quality
Department. For further information on any of the matters discussed,
please feel free to contact any member of the department, or your
PricewaterhouseCoopers engagement leader. This newsletter is available from
the PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Canadian Web site, which is located at
www.pwc.com/ca.
The partners and managers in our Professional, Technical, Risk and Quality
Department are:
Carolyn Anthony
973 236 4684
[email protected]
416 941 8432
403 509 7529
[email protected]
[email protected]
416 814 5716
514 205 5127
[email protected]
[email protected]
514 205 5122
[email protected]
416 869 2320
416 815 5236
416 941 8413
403 509 6680
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
416 941 8363
416 941 8214
416 814 5715
416 869 2599
416 941 8243
416 941 8249
416 365 8809
416 941 8388
416 814 5717
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
rosemary [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
(Florham Park NJ)
Scott Bandura
Sean Cable
(Calgary)
Gord Cetkovski
Michel Charbonneau
(Montreal)
David Clément
(Montreal)
Larissa Dyomina
Sophie Gaudreault
Doug Isaac
Celeste Kaupp
(Calgary)
Vicki Kovacs
Robert Marsh
Neil McFadgen
Rosemary McGuire
Bob Muter
Jim Saloman
Sherrie Shaw
Mike Tambosso
Gary Van Haren
12 Financial Reporting Release
© 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Canada. “PricewaterhouseCoopers” refers to
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Canada, an Ontario limited liability partnership, or, as the context
requires, the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of
which is a separate and independent legal entity.
3945_0107