Covenant Breach, Refinancing, and Going Concern at a Rwandan Agribusiness
Sona Agro Ltd is a Rwandan maize and soya processor with a December year-end. It has a RWF 2.4 billion term loan from a local bank, repayable in quarterly instalments of RWF 150 million. The loan covenant requires a debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) of at least 1.25x and a current ratio of at least 1.2. At year-end:
- EBITDA is RWF 780 million; scheduled debt service (principal + interest) is RWF 680 million → DSCR = 1.15x.
- Current assets are RWF 1.1 billion; current liabilities are RWF 1.0 billion → current ratio = 1.1.
The bank has issued a waiver for the year-end breach but it expires on 31 March 20X5. Management is negotiating a refinancing with a second bank but no term sheet has been signed. The company has RWF 90 million cash and a RWF 300 million overdraft facility that the bank can recall on demand. Harvest season begins in May.
1. Assess the going concern status of Sona Agro under IAS 1 and ISA 570, and determine the appropriate disclosure and audit treatment.
Read the worked answer
Going concern assessment (IAS 1 / ISA 570):
Indicators of doubt:
- DSCR 1.15x and current ratio 1.1 both breach covenants.
- Waiver expires 31 March 20X5, before the audit report is likely signed.
- No signed refinancing term sheet; negotiations are at an early stage.
- Overdraft of RWF 300m is repayable on demand.
- Cash of RWF 90m is insufficient to meet the next quarterly instalment of RWF 150m plus interest.
- Harvest cash inflows only begin in May, after the waiver expires.
Assessment: There is a material uncertainty over going concern. The company may be able to continue, but the ability depends on obtaining a waiver extension or refinancing - neither of which is secured.
Disclosure: IAS 1 requires disclosure of the material uncertainty, including the nature of the events, the plans, and the potential impact. The disclosure must be specific, not boilerplate.
Audit treatment:
- If disclosure is adequate: unmodified opinion with an emphasis of matter / material uncertainty related to going concern paragraph (ISA 570 para 22–23).
- If disclosure is inadequate: qualified or adverse opinion.
- If the entity is not a going concern: prepare on a break-up basis and modify the opinion.
Additional procedures: Obtain the bank's waiver letter, review correspondence on refinancing, obtain cash flow forecasts covering at least 12 months, challenge assumptions, and obtain written representations. Consider whether the bank has the right to demand repayment and whether cross-default clauses apply.
2. The directors argue that because the bank has historically rolled over facilities, no disclosure is needed. Evaluate this argument and recommend the audit response.
Read the worked answer
Evaluation of the directors' argument:
- Historical rollover is not a guarantee. ISA 570 requires the auditor to assess the current facts. A past practice does not create a legal right to continue the facility. The waiver expires on 31 March and the overdraft is on demand.
- The bank's position may have changed. The covenant breach itself signals deteriorating credit quality; the bank may decline to roll over. The auditor should obtain direct confirmation from the bank of its intentions.
- Refinancing is not agreed. An unsigned negotiation is not sufficient evidence to support a no-disclosure conclusion. IAS 1 disclosure is required where material uncertainty exists.
- Directors' representations are not a substitute for evidence. A representation that the bank will roll over is not sufficient without corroboration (ISA 580).
Recommended audit response:
- Obtain a written confirmation from the bank of its intention regarding the waiver and overdraft.
- Review the loan agreement for cross-default and acceleration clauses.
- Obtain and challenge the 12-month cash flow forecast, including sensitivity analysis (e.g., a 20% fall in maize prices).
- If the bank will not confirm, treat the uncertainty as unresolved and consider the effect on the opinion.
- Document the assessment and communicate with those charged with governance.
Conclusion: The directors' argument is not acceptable. Disclosure of the material uncertainty is required unless and until the refinancing or waiver extension is signed. The auditor should not accept a representation that contradicts the available evidence.