Ligand Pharmaceuticals

The Ligand Company violated U.S. accounting standards and concepts, specifically U.S. GAAP when it understated its sales returns to present a better financial picture of the company. The research focuses on the Ligand violations of U.S. consistency, comaparability, and fair presentation standards and concepts (Bragg, 2007). The research focuses on the criticism on PCAOB for being too stringent. The financial statements must display the fair presentation of the organization’s business activities.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Ligand Pharmaceuticals specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More International accounting standard 18 focuses on revenues. Revenue is income that is precipitates from the daily business activities of the company. Revenue is recorded when it is probable that future economic benefits will flow into the coffers of the company and the benefits can be measured (Bragg, 2007). Likewise, revenue rep resents the gross inflow of benefits from the daily business activities of the company. In this regard, sales return is a necessary accounting entry that reduces revenues to its net realizable. Gross sales less sales returns produces net sales; net sales is the revenue that represents the gross inflow of benefits from the company’s daily business operations. Likewise, international accounting standards 1, preparation of financial statements, discusses the intricacies of recording business transactions, including when, how, and how much should be recorded in terms of sales returns (www.IASB.com). Ligand failed to comply with the accounting standard and concept specially IAS 18 and IAS1. Ligand underestimated its sales return figures to show a fraudulent net revenue figure of only 2.5%. Ligand should present the real sales return figure which is higher. The higher sales return figure would reduce net revenues; this true net revenue estate presents a less favorable picture of Li gand when compared to the fraudulent net revenue shown in the Ligand financial statements. Fazio should use realistic figures such as the forecast done by Fazio’s auditing staff shown to be from 13% to 20%. Consequently, Fazio should not issue a non qualified opinion (Moeller, 2008). In response to the understatement of the sales returns, the external auditors should recommend an adjustment to the sales return figures from the erroneous 2.5% to the realistic figure; the realistic figure is from13% to 20%. Failure to comply with the audit recommendations would force the external auditors to avoid issuing a nonqualified opinion (Delaney Whittington, 2010). From its creation, the PCAOB had many criticisms from many affected sectors, especially the external auditing firm. There have been many complaints directed at the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. One of the major criticisms is that the PCAOB’s issuance of AS2. This is a 150 page auditing standards that force s external auditors to metamorphose into a more conservative type of audit program when handling each audit client.Advertising Looking for report on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Another major complaint is that AS2 does not explain in detail how publicly listed companies establish a â€Å"fair† internal control system (Moeller 2008). Likewise, the PCAOB has forced external auditing firms to increase its audit expenses; the auditing firm must increase its audit time and audit program to ensure a better audit work as compared to the less stringent auditing program prevailing prior to the PCAOB and Sarbanes –Oxley Act. The PCAOB introduced the stricter audit policies to prevent a repeat of the Enron, WorldCom, and other accounting scandals where the external auditors connived with their clients to present fraudulent financial statements. Many audit companies complained that PCAOB –presc ribed auditing standards were too cumbersome and expensive (Daelen 2010). The PCAOB should implement some measures to improve the efficiency as well as effectiveness as a Sarbanes Oxley Act –created auditing oversight body. The PCAOB should hold regular meetings with representatives from all affected sectors of society, especially the external auditors. The PCAOB body should taper its stringent auditing policies to ensure the survival of the auditing firms. In addition, the PCAOB should openly receive suggestions from auditing firms and the client firms as basis for issuing future audit –related policies and procedures. Briefly, the Ligand Company violated U.S. accounting standards and concepts, specifically U.S. GAAP by understating sales returns. The external auditor required adjustments to correct the fraudulent Ligand Company financial report. The PCAOB has been criticized for being too stringent on the auditing firms. Indeed, financial statements should present th e fair presentation of the organization’s business activities. References Bragg, S. (2007) Wiley GAAP Policies and Procedures. New York, J Wiley Sons Press. Daelen, M. (2010) Risk Management and Corporate Governance. New York, Edward Press.Advertising We will write a custom report sample on Ligand Pharmaceuticals specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Delaney, P., Whittington, R., (2010) Wiley CPA Exam Review 2011: Auditing and  Attestation. New York,J. Wiley Sons Press. Moeller, R. (2008) Sarbanes -Oxley Internal Controls. New York, J Wiley Sons Press. This report on Ligand Pharmaceuticals was written and submitted by user Emilee F. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Scharnhorst - German World War II Battleship

Scharnhorst - German World War II Battleship Scharnhorst - Overview: Nation: Germany Type: Battleship/Battlecruiser Shipyard: Kriegsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven Laid Down: June 15, 1935 Launched: October 3, 1936 Commissioned: January 7, 1939 Fate: Sunk December 26, 1943, Battle of the North Cape Scharnhorst - Specifications: Displacement: 32,600 tons Length: 771 ft. Beam: 98 ft. Draft: 32 ft. Propulsion: 3 Brown, Boveri, Cie geared steam turbines Speed: 31 knots Range: 7,100 miles at 19 knots Complement: 1,669 men Armament: Guns 9 Ãâ€" 28 cm/54.5 (11 inch) SK C/3412 Ãâ€" 15 cm/55 (5.9) SK C/2814 Ãâ€" 10.5  cm/65 (4.1 inch) SK C/3316 Ãâ€" 3.7  cm/L83 (1.5) SK C/3010 (later 16) Ãâ€" 2 cm/65 (0.79) C/30 or C/386 Ãâ€" 533  mm torpedo tubes Aircraft 3 Ãâ€" Arado Ar 196A Scharnhorst - Design: In the late 1920s, debate ensued within Germany regarding the size and place of the nations navy.   These concerns were heightened by new shipbuilding in France and the Soviet Union which led to the  Reichsmarine planning for new warships.   Though restricted by the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I to building warships of 10,000 long tons or less, initial designs far exceeded this displacement.   After ascending to power in 1933, Adolf Hitler authorized the building of two D-class cruisers to supplement the three Deutschland-class panzerschiffes (armored ships) then under construction.   Originally intended to mount two turrets like the earlier ships, the D-class became a source of conflict between the navy, which wanted larger more powerful vessels, and Hitler who was concerned about overly flaunting the Treaty of Versailles.   After concluding the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935 which eliminated the treaty restrictions, Hitler canceled the two D-class cruisers and moved ahead with a pair of larger vessels dubbed Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in recognition of the two armored cruisers lost at the 1914 Battle of the Falklands.   Though Hitler desired the ships to mount 15 guns, the necessary turrets were not available and they were instead equipped with nine 11 guns.   Provision was made in the design to up-gun the vessels to six 15 guns in the future.   This main battery was supported by twelve 5.9 guns in four twin turrets and four single mounts.   Power for the new ships came from three Brown, Boveri, and Cie geared steam turbines which could generate a top speed of 31.5 knots.   Scharnhorst - Construction: The contract for Scharnhorst was given to Kriegsmarinewerft in Wilhelmshaven.   Laid down on on June 15, 1935, the new warship slid down the ways the following year on October 3.   Commissioned on January 9, 1939 with Captain Otto Ciliax in command, Scharnhorst performed poorly during its sea trials and showed a tendency to ship large amounts of water over the bow.   This frequently led to electrical issues with the forward turrets.   Returning to the yard, Scharnhorst underwent significant modifications which included the installation of a higher bow, a raked funnel cap, and an enlarged hangar.   Also, the ships mainmast was shifted further aft.   By the time this work was completed in November, Germany had already started World War II. Scharnhorst - Into Action:       Commencing active operations under the leadership of Captain Kurt-Caesar Hoffman, Scharnhorst joined Gneisenau, the light cruiser Kà ¶ln, and nine destroyers for a patrol between the Faroes and Iceland in late November.   Intended to draw the Royal Navy away from its pursuit of Admiral Graf Spee in the South Atlantic, the sortie saw Scharnhorst sink the auxiliary cruiser Rawalpindi on November 23.   Pursued by a force that included the battlecruiser HMS Hood and the battleships HMS Rodney, HMS Nelson, and the French Dunkerque, the German squadron escaped back to Wilhelmshaven.   Arriving in port, Scharnhorst underwent an overhaul and repaired damaged sustained by heavy seas. Scharnhorst - Norway: Following training exercises in the Baltic during the winter, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sailed to take part in the invasion of Norway (Operation Weserà ¼bung).   After evading British air attacks on April 7, the ships engaged the British battlecruiser HMS Renown off Lofoten.   In a running fight, Scharnhorsts radar malfunctioned making it difficult to range the enemy vessel.   After Gneisenau sustained several hits, the two ships used heavy weather to cover their withdrawal.   Repaired in Germany, the two ships returned to Norwegian waters in early June and sank a British corvette on the 8th.   As the day progressed, the Germans located the carrier HMS Glorious and the destroyers HMS Acasta and HMS Ardent.   Closing with the three ships, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau sank all three but not before Acasta struck the former with a torpedo.   The hit killed 48 sailors, jammed the aft turret, as well as caused extensive flooding which disabled machinery and led to a 5-degree list.   Forced to make temporary repairs at Trondheim, Scharnhorst endured multiple air attacks from land-based British aircraft and HMS Ark Royal.   Departing for Germany on June 20, it sailed south with a heavy escort and extensive fighter cover.   This proved necessary as successive British air attacks were turned back.   Entering the yard at Kiel, repairs on Scharnhorst took around six months to complete. Scharnhorst - Into the Atlantic: In January 1941, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau slipped into the Atlantic to commence Operation Berlin.   Commanded by Admiral Gà ¼nther Là ¼tjens, the operation called for the ships to attack Allied convoys.   Though leading a powerful force, Là ¼tjens was hampered by orders which prohibited him from engaging Allied capital ships.   Encountering convoys on February 8 and March 8, he broke off both attacks when British battleships were sighted.   Turning towards the mid-Atlantic, Scharnhorst sank a Greek cargo ship before finding a dispersed convoy on March 15.   Over the next several days, it destroyed another nine ships before the arrival of the battleships HMS King George V and Rodney compelled  Là ¼tjens to retreat.   Arriving at Brest, France on March 22, work soon commenced on Scharnhorsts machinery which had proved problematic during the operation.   As a result, the vessel was not available to support Operation Rheinà ¼bung involving the new battleship Bismarc k that May. Scharnhorst - Channel Dash: Moving south to La Rochelle, Scharnhorst sustained five bomb hits during an air raid on July 24.   Causing extensive damage and an 8-degree list, the ship returned to Brest for repairs.   In January 1942, Hitler directed that Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and the heavy cruiser Prinz Eugen return to Germany in preparation for operations against convoys to the Soviet Union.   Under the overall command of Ciliax, the three ships put to sea on February 11 with the intention of running through the British defenses in the English Channel.   Initially avoiding detection from British forces, the squadron later came under attack.   While off the Scheldt, Scharnhorst struck an air-dropped mine at 3:31 PM which caused hull damage as well as jammed a turret and several other gun mounts and knocked out electrical power.   Brought to a halt, emergency repairs were conducted which allowed the vessel to get underway at reduced speed eighteen minutes later.   At 10:34 PM, Scharnhorst hit a second mine while near  Terschelling.   Again disabled, the crew were able to get one propeller turning and the ship limped into Wilhelmshaven the next morning.   Moved to a floating drydock, Scharnhorst remained out of action until June. Scharnhorst - Back to Norway: In August 1942, Scharnhorst commenced training exercises with several U-boats.   During these maneuvers it collided with U-523 which necessitated a return to drydock.   Emerging in September, Scharnhorst trained in the Baltic before steaming to Gotenhafen (Gdynia) to receive new rudders.   After two aborted attempts during the winter of 1943, the ship moved north to Norway in March and rendezvoused with Là ¼tzow  and the battleship Tirpitz near Narvik.   Shifting to Altafjord, the ships conducted a training mission to Bear Island in early April.   On April 8, Scharnhorst was rocked by an explosion in an aft auxiliary machinery space which killed and injured 34 sailors.   Repaired,  it and its consorts were largely inactive for the next six months due to fuel shortages.    Scharnhorst - Battle of the North Cape: Sortieing on September 6 with Tirpitz, Scharnhorst steamed north and bombarded Allied facilities at Spitzbergen.   Three months later, Grand Admiral Karl Doenitz ordered German vessels in Norway to attack Allied convoys sailing to and from the Soviet Union.   As Tirpitz was damaged, the German attack force consisted of Scharnhorst and five destroyers under the command of Rear Admiral Erich Bey.   Receiving aerial reconnaissance reports of convoy JW 55B, Bey departed Altafjord on December 25 with the intention of attacking the next day.   Moving against his target, he was unaware that Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser had laid a trap with the goal of eliminating the German ship.    Detecting Scharnhorst around 8:30 AM on December 26, Vice Admiral Robert Burnetts force, consisting of the heavy cruiser HMS Norfolk and light cruisers  HMS Belfast and HMS Sheffield, closed with the enemy in increasingly poor weather to open the Battle of the North Cape.   Commencing fire, they succeeded in disabling Scharnhorsts radar.   In a running battle, Bey sought to loop around the British cruisers before deciding to return to port at 12:50 PM.   Pursuing the enemy, Burnett relayed the German ships position to Fraser who was in the vicinity with the battleship HMS Duke of York, the light cruiser HMS Jamaica, and four destroyers.   At 4:17 PM, Fraser located Scharnhorst on radar and ordered his destroyers forward to launch a torpedo attack.   With its radar down, the German ship was taken by surprise as Duke of Yorks guns began scoring hits.   Turning away, Scharnhorst narrowed the range with Burnetts cruisers which rejoined the battle.   As the fight developed, Beys vessel was badly battered by British guns and sustained four torpedo hits. With Scharnhorst critically damaged and the bow partially submerged, Bey ordered the ship abandoned at 7:30 PM.   As these orders were issued, another torpedo attack scored several more hits on the stricken Scharnhorst.   Around 7:45 PM a massive explosion tore through the ship and it slipped beneath the waves.   Racing forward, British vessels were only able to rescue 36 of Scharnhorsts  1,968-man crew. Selected Sources Battleship ScharnhorstSinking of the ScharnhorstMilitary Factory: Scharnhorst

Developing management Skills Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Developing management Skills - Essay Example Mentoring as a method of leadership is also addressed as well as the means to stimulate employee motivation to delegated task assignments. A strategic directive has been issued by senior leadership determining that streamlining departmental operations has become necessary not only for cost objectives, but for enhancing communications within the business facility. It has been determined that the operational manager must research methods in which to design a better materials management system. Realistically, strategic directives from senior executives mean nothing without efficient middle managers who are able to design the systems and carry out the plans (Moss Kanter 2004, p.150). In such a situation, the manager must design a rational decision making model to assess the situation, make programmed and non-programmed decisions regarding new systems implementation, develop alternative measures, and accomplish the goal using employee/management resources. Assume that through needs analysis, the manager has determined that the most logical course of action is to implement an ERP system (enterprise resource planning) designed to combine the entire firms electronic functions into a single software programme on the same database. Such a project is a tremendous undertaking and involves skilful coordination between multiple departments. Senior leadership has not yet agreed to the new ERP system, has offered concerns about potential budget constraints, and expects continuous progress reports from the operational manager in regards to proposed implementation. The responsible manager must address the specific characteristics of management decision making including uncertainty, risk, conflict, scope and crisis (Gomez-Mejia et al 2005, p.241) and be able to effectively communicate these issues in order to receive senior-level approval for the proposed project. As part of the upward feedback process, the manager must create a frame for his message that orients the