Editor in Chief (interim) AccountingWEB
Share this content

Grant Thornton fined £1.95m for Conviviality audit flaws

Grant Thornton was fined £1.95m by the Financial Reporting Council this week and reprimanded along with two of its Conviviality audit team for technical and ethical failures in the audit of the failed drinks group.

9th Jul 2020
Editor in Chief (interim) AccountingWEB
Share this content
Conviviality warehouses closed for good in March 2018
iStock_Wine_PeopleImages

At the heart of the disciplinary sanction were 11 adverse findings demonstrating Grant Thornton’s failure to “take responsibility for establishing a control environment that placed adherence to ethical principles and compliance with ethical standards above commercial considerations”.

The disciplinary action attracted a £3m penalty that was reduced by 35% to £1.95 for co-operating with the investigation.

Kevin Engel, the former Grant Thornton partner who handled the Conviviality engagement for the year to 30 April 2014, also received a severe reprimand and a permanent ban on from signing audit opinions.

Senior manager Natasha Toy was initially part of the Grant Thornton audit team at Conviviality but was then seconded to help the client prepare its year-end financial statements - contrary to audit independence standards. 

The senior manager subsequently tried to remove a 4.5 hour time entry she had recorded on the audit file to her involvement. She earned a reprimand for this breach but was spared any further financial penalty or costs.

The year 2014 was Conviviality’s first year as a plc listed on the AIM exchange. When the company’s financial controller left, the finance director reacted keenly when Engel suggested that his audit manager could help “front and back” and with the year-end close.

This was a contravention of Paragraph 160 of Ethical Standard 5 that forbids audit firms from providing accounting services to a listed audit client unless specific criteria are met in emergency situations.

In its commentary on the case, the FRC highlighted two aspects of Grant Thornton’s failings:

  • Deficiencies in the firm’s control environment and processes to ensure compliance with ethical standards; and
  • Ethical breaches that compromised the independence of its Conviviality audit.

“The FRC does not allege that Grant Thornton in fact lacked objectivity or that the accounts did not give a true and fair view of the company’s affairs,” the watchdog said. But it nevertheless obtained an admission from the firm that it had breached standards designed to preserve the integrity, objectivity and independence of its audit work over a period of three years and providing an unqualified audit opinion in circumstances where it should have resigned from the engagement because of the audit manager’s secondment.

The disciplinary sanctions included several non-financial elements including the creation of an internal ethics oversight board that will have to report to the FRC for the next three years; increased training for staff on “relevant ethical issues” and other measures to ensure compliance with ethical standards.

 “The sanctions in this matter not only send a clear message as to how seriously the FRC views such failures but are also focused on ensuring that there is no repetition and the causes of the failures are effectively addressed at their roots,” said FRC deputy executive counsel Claudia Mortimore.

The six-year-old disciplinary action ultimately came about after Conviviality collapsed in March 2018, following a £15m readjustment to forecast earnings. This included more than £5m the company said was the result of a “spreadsheet arithmetic error”. Days later, the company revealed it hadn’t budgeted for a £30m tax bill that fell due.

Conviviality’s share value fell 60% before AIM suspended trading and shortly afterwards its wholesale division was bought by the owners of Magners cider in a pre-pack administration.

KPMG took over from Grant Thornton as Conviviality auditor for the year to 30 April 2017 and its conduct is also the subject of an FRC investigation that has yet to be concluded.

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
09th Jul 2020 12:33

As far as I could see she was ordered by Mr E to make that timesheet change, so you can excuse her to a large extent there.

A most unedifying saga.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By John Wheeley
10th Jul 2020 09:59

Sorry, I disagree, why should she be excused?

Thanks (0)
Replying to John Wheeley:
avatar
By Rgab1947
10th Jul 2020 10:36

Wanted to keep her job

Thanks (0)
Replying to John Wheeley:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
14th Jul 2020 09:21

I said "to a large extent" and you must be pretty dumb not to understand the context there (if you read the judgment - which you may not have done).

I accept your apology nonetheless.

Arcadia below has obviously read the judgment & understands the context and I agree with him/her.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Arcadia
10th Jul 2020 13:16

I really feel for Ms Toy being caught out by the 'gotcha' approach to regulation when the 'crime' and the potential risk was nugatory. As fully set out in the report it was planned she would be the audit manager on this audit, but the possibility came up she would be seconded to the client to prepare their accounts. During the few days that elapsed while this was negotiated and the ethical partner was consulted she spent 4.5 hours helping the audit director draft the audit plan. Is the FRC seriously saying this compromised Grant Thornton's independence as auditor? Yes, the partner then asked her to make sure she had not spent any time on the audit, and yes, she tried to remove the entry. They wouldn't need to go into these contortions if they thought that there was any kind of proportionate approach to what is an extremely minor matter.
What the FRC have now signalled is that common sense goes out of the window and that minor infringements of no consequence are going to be punished by naming and shaming. I completely accept that there were many other findings against GT of a serious nature, but to tack this one on the end against an employee with no influence over the conduct of the audit (which is supposed to be the point isn't it) or the policies or conduct of GT is just vicious.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Arcadia:
avatar
By SJH-ADVDIPMA
15th Jul 2020 10:58

Auditing accounts largely created by a grant thornton employee (she didnt join conviviality?) was the problem?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By SJH-ADVDIPMA
15th Jul 2020 10:56

Just really sounds like the FD was a right plonker.

Thanks (0)