Hilal Packaging: A Group Audit with an Unfamiliar Component Auditor
Hilal Packaging is a listed group with six subsidiaries. One subsidiary, Hilal Gulf FZE in Sharjah, holds 18% of group assets and generates 31% of group revenue. It is audited by a local firm that is not subject to inspection by any regulator and has never worked with the group auditor. Group materiality is PKR 240 million and performance materiality is PKR 180 million. The audit partner has received the draft going concern paper: the group has net current liabilities of PKR 1.6 billion and breached a covenant on a PKR 3.0 billion sukuk; the lender has waived the breach until 30 September, nine months after the 31 December reporting date. Management's cash flow forecast shows positive headroom of only PKR 400 million, and only if a PKR 2.5 billion refinancing completes by June; the forecast assumes 14% revenue growth. The CFO says a material uncertainty paragraph 'would kill the refinancing'.
1. What work must the group auditor perform on the Hilal Gulf component, and what happens if the component auditor refuses access to its working papers?
Read the worked answer
Significance assessment (ISA 600 (Revised)) Hilal Gulf is a component and is clearly significant: 31% of group revenue and 18% of group assets exceed any sensible benchmark, and it carries significant risk given the jurisdiction, the related party environment and the unfamiliar auditor. Group significant risk therefore arises at component level.
What the group engagement team must do
- Assess the component auditor's competence, independence and ethics - this cannot be assumed. Obtain evidence of: professional body membership and licensing in the UAE, quality monitoring/inspection history (absence of inspection is a risk factor, not automatically disqualifying), and independence declarations covering the group and Hilal Gulf.
- Obtain an understanding of the component auditor's system of quality management relevant to the audit, since ISA 600 (Revised) requires the group auditor to evaluate the component auditor's QM rather than simply rely on the firm's reputation.
- Communicate group requirements: group and component materiality (performance materiality 180m, allocated to the component), the significant risks identified at group level, related party information, and the ISA 600 requirement to report all deficiencies.
- Direct and supervise: specify the work required on the component's significant areas; review the component auditor's documentation of significant judgements.
- Involvement by the group team: for a significant component with a high-risk profile and an auditor never previously worked with, the group auditor should perform some of the work directly, or at minimum visit and review the significant working papers. Delegation with no involvement is not sufficient.
- Document the evaluation, communications and review.
If the component auditor refuses access to its working papers, the group auditor cannot obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence over 31% of revenue. There is no exemption for foreign jurisdictions or confidentiality law. Options: perform the work itself or through a firm it can access; if neither is possible, issue a qualified opinion on the basis of limitation of scope - and because the component is large and pervasive, consider whether it amounts to a disclaimer. The engagement should not be accepted or continued if access cannot be secured.
2. Reach a conclusion on going concern and set out the reporting implications. How should the partner deal with the CFO's remark?
Read the worked answer
Assessment (ISA 570) The horizon is at least 12 months from approval of the financial statements, so the 30 September waiver expiry falls inside it. Untested assumptions:
- The waiver expires within the review period, and the covenant breach may recur.
- The refinancing is not committed and is contingent on the auditor's own report - a circular dependency.
- Headroom of 400m is 13% of the refinancing being sought and ~3% of net current liabilities; it is thin.
- The 14% revenue growth assumption needs challenge: compare to historical growth, order books and the group's own budgets; run a downside case at 0% or negative growth and test whether headroom survives.
Conclusion A material uncertainty related to going concern exists. Heading off that conclusion is not an available option: ISA 570 requires a separate section under the going concern heading where the auditor concludes a material uncertainty exists and it is adequately disclosed in the financial statements.
Scenarios
- Adequate disclosure → unmodified opinion plus the material uncertainty section; also assess whether the matter is a Key Audit Matter (it is not, where it is already reported under going concern).
- Inadequate disclosure → qualified or adverse opinion, depending on pervasiveness.
- If the auditor concludes the going concern basis is not appropriate → adverse opinion.
- Consider whether a breach of covenant unresolved at authorisation date is an adjusting event indicating a liability falling due; and whether the entity remains a going concern at all if the refinancing is probable but not committed.
The CFO's remark This is an attempt to make the audit opinion contingent on financing success. It is a threat to integrity and self-interest, and potentially a Chapter C-type threat to objectivity if the firm earns other fees. The partner must: (i) state plainly, in writing, that the opinion reflects the evidence and cannot be influenced by the refinancing; (ii) notify those charged with governance - and, where management's conduct suggests misrepresentation, consider the implications for the reliability of management representations as a whole and for reporting under the firm's legal/regulatory obligations.