Pennine Chemicals: restructuring, subsequent events and covenant classification
Pennine Chemicals Ltd prepares accounts to 31 December 20X4 and the board approved them on 20 March 20X5. Several matters are unresolved. (i) On 15 November 20X4 the board approved a detailed restructuring plan, wrote to affected employees and announced it publicly; the plan closes the Leeds site by June 20X6. Costs identified are £2.4m of redundancy payments, £0.5m of retraining and relocation for retained staff, and £0.3m of expected operating losses at Leeds until closure. (ii) On 10 February 20X5 the environmental regulator served a notice requiring Pennine to clean up soil contamination caused by its own operations between 20X1 and 20X4; the estimated cost is £1.8m. (iii) On 5 February 20X5 a customer owing £0.8m, already 120 days overdue at the year end, was placed into liquidation. (iv) On 20 January 20X5 Pennine lost a major supply contract, expected to cut 20X5 profit by £2m. (v) A gearing covenant was breached at 31 December 20X4; the bank signed a waiver on 15 January 20X5 which runs to 31 December 20X5.
1. Quantify the restructuring provision and explain which costs are excluded.
Read the worked answer
The recognition criteria are met at 31 December 20X4: a detailed formal plan exists, and a valid expectation has been created in the minds of those affected because the board has written to employees and announced the plan before the year end. The obligation therefore exists at the reporting date.
Only direct expenditures arising from the restructuring that are both necessarily entailed by it and not associated with the ongoing activities of the entity may be provided for:
| Item | £m | Provided? |
|---|---|---|
| Redundancy payments | 2.4 | Yes – direct, necessarily entailed |
| Retraining and relocation of retained staff | 0.5 | No – relates to future operations and future benefits |
| Operating losses at Leeds until closure | 0.3 | No – future losses are not present obligations |
| Provision | 2.4 |
The £0.5m and £0.3m are expensed as incurred in 20X5 and 20X6. The provision is presented separately and split between current and non-current according to when the outflow occurs (the Leeds closure runs to June 20X6). The gain on any asset disposals under the plan is recognised only when the assets are sold, not netted against the provision, and the provision is discounted only if the effect of the time value of money is material (here it is not, given the short timeframe). Disclosure of the nature of the obligation, the expected timing and any uncertainty is required.
2. Classify items (ii) to (iv) under IAS 10 and state the accounting treatment for each.
Read the worked answer
Item (ii) – regulator notice (10 February 20X5). The notice is an adjusting event. The contamination occurred between 20X1 and 20X4, so the obligating event pre-dates the reporting date; the notice provides evidence of a condition existing at 31 December 20X4. Moreover, IAS 37's recognition criteria are met at the year end even before the notice if a present obligation existed and an outflow was probable and measurable. Recognise a provision of £1.8m in the 20X4 accounts, with the related expense in operating costs (or as an exceptional item, disclosed). Any possible reimbursement or insurance recovery is recognised as a separate asset only when virtually certain.
Item (iii) – customer liquidation (5 February 20X5). An adjusting event. The customer's deteriorating financial position existed at the year end, as evidenced by the amount being 120 days overdue; the liquidation confirms the loss. The receivable is doubtful in full: write off £0.8m in the 20X4 accounts. If only part of the debt were recoverable the allowance would be measured to the shortfall.
Item (iv) – loss of a major supply contract (20 January 20X5). A non-adjusting event. The contract was lost in 20X5 and there is no condition at 31 December 20X4 to adjust. No liability arises for lost future profits. If the loss is material, it is disclosed with an estimate of the financial effect, and management should consider its impact on the going concern assessment and on the recoverability of any related contract-based intangible or dedicated assets - which could trigger an impairment test at the year end only if conditions at the year end already pointed that way.
3. Explain the classification of the breached loan and the group's going concern assessment and disclosures.
Read the worked answer
Classification. The covenant was breached at 31 December 20X4, so at the end of the reporting period the loan was repayable on demand and the right to defer settlement did not exist at that date. Under IAS 1 (as amended in 2020), classification depends on rights that exist at the reporting date; a waiver obtained on 15 January 20X5, before the financial statements were authorised, cannot retroactively create that right. The loan is therefore classified as current in the 20X4 statement of financial position, even though the waiver is in place.
Subsequent event. The waiver is a non-adjusting event that gives evidence of conditions arising after the reporting date (the bank's forbearance), so it is disclosed with its nature and estimated financial effect. Disclosure allows the reader to understand that the position was resolved before the accounts were signed.
Going concern. The waiver runs to 31 December 20X5, covering the whole of the following twelve months. It removes the immediate repayment risk, but management must budget for the covenant tests at 31 December 20X5 and consider whether the £1.8m clean-up, the £0.8m bad debt, the £2.4m restructuring outflow and the £2m profit loss in 20X5 could cause a further breach. A forecast, a sensitivity analysis and a documented review of alternative funding are required. If a material uncertainty remains, the accounts are still prepared on a going concern basis but the uncertainty must be disclosed prominently, and the auditor's report would include a material uncertainty paragraph. If the going concern basis were judged inappropriate, the financial statements would need to be restated on a break-up basis - which is not the position here.