|
|
The claim alleged that the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) made changes to its new financial instruments standard, IFRS 9, without following the proper processes for such changes.
Of particular concern to the whistleblower, according to the claim, was that the change amounted to a change in practice.
The chair of the Foundation’s due process oversight committee, James Quigley, said: “We as a committee are comfortable that due process has been followed.
“What we are really saying is that, when the board decides that standard setting isn’t needed, there is not any due process for us to oversee in reality.”
He added that his contact with the IFRS leaders at the leading six audit firms had revealed they did not view the board’s actions as a breach of due process. “They agree with the conclusion of the board that standard setting was not required,” he added.
Quigley also noted that auditors believed that allowing differences in practice would have proved far worse than any action the board had taken.
The complaint under discussion on 7 November arose out of work done by the IFRS Interpretations Committee and the IASB on IFRS 9, which details how financial assets and liabilities should be classified and measured.
Specifically, the work dealt with the accounting under IFRS 9 for a modification or exchange of a financial liability measured at amortised cost that did not result in the de-recognition of the financial liability.