There have been so many instances in the past where ISX and...

There have been so many instances in the past where ISX and people here have said that Grant Thornton provided unqualified audit opinions, therefore there are absolutely zero doubts about historical revenue recognition.

Now there is a restatement of revenue in 30 June 2019 and 31 December 2019, the periods which form part of the comparatives for 30 June 2020.

So why didn't Grant Thornton pick up this error? What else did they not pick up? Do ISX still stand by their numerous statements about Grant Thornton signing off on the audits meaning that all the revenue is correct?

Why wasn't BDO provided access to GT's working papers? This is industry standard practice when there is a change of auditor - the incoming firm will always review the predecessors files to form a conclusion.

This is also applicable to the ASRE 2410 standard which BDO provided their report based on:


There are two possibilities why BDO were unable to review GT's files:

1) Potentially don't want additional scrutiny and they know there could be issues with their audits - hence why there is a 'conflict of interest' which was cited as the reason for their removal.
2) Timing of appointment of BDO. This is unlikely given that ISX is suspended and the only penalty for not lodging your half year or annual reports on the ASX or to ASIC in time is suspension from trading. Why not wait another month or so and get a clean report from BDO?

I wonder if ASX has sent a query letter to ISX asking for an explanation as to why GT did not provide their working papers. ASX generally send these letters out for any qualifications to auditors opinions or conclusions. It would be a wise strategic choice by them to ask this question of ISX - perhaps it's worth getting in contact with ASX to see if they've considered this.