Delcrest Medical Devices: The Warranty Reserve and the Covenant
Priya Raman, CMA, is controller of Delcrest Medical Devices. Two weeks before year-end close, the CFO tells her to cut the product-warranty reserve from $4.2 million to $1.5 million, saying the actuaries' model is "too conservative and the auditors won't push back." The reserve covers a field-corrective-action risk disclosed in last year's 10-K. The reduction converts a $0.9 million pre-tax loss into a $1.8 million profit and keeps Delcrest inside a covenant requiring positive net income. Priya's own analysis of three years of claims data supports $3.8–4.5 million. The CFO is her direct supervisor and sets her bonus. The audit committee chair, a former CFO of a competitor, has been cool to Priya in prior meetings. Missing the covenant would let the lender accelerate $60 million of debt.
1. Apply the IMA Statement of Ethical Professional Practice to these facts. Which specific obligations are engaged, and why is this not a routine estimation dispute?
Read the worked answer
This is an objectivity and integrity problem disguised as an accounting-estimate problem. Both can be true at once: reserve estimates genuinely vary, and this particular change is being directed for a reason that is not actuarial.
Competence. Priya has performed the analysis and it supports $3.8–4.5M. Competence requires performing professional duties in accordance with relevant technical standards and providing decision support that is accurate - signing off on $1.5M would mean certifying a number she believes is wrong.
Integrity. Integrity requires mitigating actual conflicts of interest and refraining from subordinating judgment to others. The instruction asks her to subordinate her judgment to the CFO's, and the CFO has an undisclosed incentive (covenant, and likely his own compensation) in the outcome.
Credibility. Credibility requires communicating information fairly and objectively, disclosing all relevant information, and disclosing delays or deficiencies in information - the driver here (covenant compliance) is exactly what must be disclosed, not buried.
Confidentiality. She may not take internal data outside the organization except as legally required; this constrains how she escalates.
Why it is not routine: three facts remove it from the normal range of judgment - (a) the change moves the number far outside the supportable range, (b) the motive stated is covenant-driven, and (c) the underlying exposure is a disclosed field-corrective-action risk in the prior 10-K, so understating it is potentially a misstatement of a previously disclosed contingency, not merely a change in estimate. A change in estimate in this direction requires new information; there is none.
2. Set out, in order, the actions Priya should take. Address the CFO's supervisory position and the audit committee chair's documented coolness toward her.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 - Prepare the record before speaking. Write a memo documenting the claims analysis, the supportable range ($3.8–4.5M), the sensitivity of the reserve to assumptions, the covenant arithmetic, and the request as it was made. Facts first, then escalation. This is what makes the later steps credible and protects her.
Step 2 - Go back to the CFO once, in writing. Present the analysis, ask for any new information the CFO has (a new actuarial study, a design change, a recall-completion date) that would justify $1.5M. If none exists, ask him to confirm the instruction in writing. Do not simply refuse - surface the conflict explicitly: "This change takes us outside the supportable range and is driven by the covenant, which has to be disclosed."
Step 3 - Consult the internal channel. Discuss with the next level up or with internal audit; the IMA conflict-resolution process has her discuss the issue with her immediate supervisor first and then escalate to the next level if unresolved. The CFO being her supervisor is precisely why escalation to the audit committee is the expected next step, not an act of disloyalty.
Step 4 - Escalate to the audit committee - the chair's temperament is not a reason to skip it. Her coolness changes the manner, not the obligation: bring a one-page written summary with the numbers, ask that it be minuted, and copy the external auditor's engagement partner. If the chair is unreceptive, put the escalation in writing to the full committee and to the general counsel. Escalation within the organization complies with Confidentiality; going outside (regulators, media) is permitted only where legally required and should be a last resort after internal channels fail.
Step 5 - Do not participate in the misstatement. She should not sign any representation, journal entry, or sub-certification supporting $1.5M. If the entry is booked over her objection, document the objection contemporaneously.
3. Suppose the CFO books $1.5 million anyway and the audit committee declines to act. What are Priya's remaining options, and what should she consider before resigning?
Read the worked answer
What she should do
- Refuse to certify and lodge a written dissent with the full board (not only the committee chair), the general counsel, and the external auditor. A note to the file alone is insufficient - an auditor who is told about a material unsupported reserve change is in a position to act.
- Ask the auditor directly whether they are aware of the reserve change and the underlying claims data. Auditors have an independent duty on loss contingencies; her disclosure to them is protected and necessary.
- Consider the legal-requirement exception to Confidentiality if the field-corrective action creates a patient-safety or regulatory disclosure obligation that is being suppressed. In that case, disclosing to the appropriate regulator may be legally required - she should take legal advice, not decide alone.
Before resigning, weigh:
- Resignation ends her influence and protection at the same time. The IMA framework treats resignation as a last resort, and if she leaves she should first inform the board in writing of the reason. A quiet exit allows the misstatement to stand.
- Her own exposure. Controllers and CFOs can be personally liable for signed sub-certifications; the dissent memo is her principal defense.
- The economic pressure is real and should be named, not rationalized. Her bonus is controlled by the person asking her to misstate. That is a conflict of interest to be disclosed, not a reason to comply.
- Appropriate final step: resign only after written escalation to the board is documented, and state the reason in the resignation letter. Consider whether a company with a weak control environment (a committee chair who will not act) is one she should continue to serve.
What she must not do: book the entry, backdate or "true up" documentation, negotiate a side payment, or remain silent while permitting the auditor to be misled. Silence, in this setting, is the misconduct.