I accused EY of “dangerous” qualifications for the collapsed NMC Health audits

Digest opens free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The United Kingdom’s Accounting Control Authority has set “very dangerous” failures in EY CELHTH audit, a court in London heard a trial on the work of the Big Four company for the FTSE 100 group that collapsed in a scandal in 2020.

The results of the organizer in the Supreme Court were revealed, where NMC EY officials were accused of neglecting and requested about two million pounds from the company on behalf of the creditors who lost money when the hospital operator failed.

Officials from Alvarez & Marsal Ey Sucors missed a series of “red flags” before NMC collapsed after the disclosure of billions of dollars in hidden debts. The scandal raised a set of legal claims and regulatory investigations that extend to London, New York and Abu Dhabi.

Ey denied any neglect of her work in signing NMC accounts. In written arguments to the court, the company argued that it was a “major goal” for “prevalent fraud”, adding that he had no duty nor the ability to reveal such violations. EY is scheduled to start its defense on Wednesday, with the appointment of the trial until October.

Officials claim that EY failed to check the notebook of the General Professor from NMC, a record of financial registration transactions, on the pretext that doing so would have offered the alleged fraud.

They also claim that EY did not properly control the communication with NMC banks, which allows a “large percentage” of financial statements to be tampered with by NMC executives before the company relied on it to confirm the financial situation of the company.

The Financial Reports Council, which regulates auditors in the United Kingdom, runs its own investigation into the work of EY in NMC and based in Abu Dhabi and has not yet announced its conclusions. However, details of the temporary results of the regulator were revealed in the court on Monday.

In support of their negligence, the officials of the officials were martyred that the FRC was that EY had “failed to conduct sufficient review procedures, bring objectivity to the bear, and practice professional suspicions” in its work on NMC accounts.

FRC opened its investigation in April 2020 and later issued a preliminary report on EY, which will not be announced until after the organizer considers changing its results in the light of the EY refute. The rejection process can settle both sides, including the potential agreement of the audit company to pay a fine.

EY, which paid 14 million pounds for NMC audits from its float in 2012, said in the ultimate collapse, in the written arguments that it “challenged a comprehensive manner” FRC results.

Saying that lawyers for officials adapted from the 563 -page FRC temporary report, saying that the organizer had found that EY had failed to correctly ask about the reason for the lack of NMC to reach the general professor’s book, and ignore “very large consistency” between the reported NMC debts and the statement provided by one of the company’s credit, which must be a “great investigation”.

Lawyers said that the organizer has caused anxiety in its report on EY independence because two Ey Middle East staff are the rest of the scrutiny after the usual time restrictions.

Lawyers added that FRC had found that an EY partners in the UK “bent over the pressure (NMC) was clear threats to end.

The case continues.