[hazratusman]

hi dear sir hope you are fine
q 1 = At the time of the business combination with Margy, Joey has included in the fair value of Margy’s identifiable net assets, an unrecognised contingent liability of $6 million in respect of a warranty claim in progress against Margy. In March 20X4, there was a revision of the estimate of the liability to $5 million. The amount has met the criteria to be recognised as a provision in current liabilities in the financial statements of Margy and the revision of the estimate is deemed to be a measurement period adjustment.

q 2- On 31 July 2008, Grange acquired a 100% of the equity interests of Fence for a cash consideration of $214 million. The identifiable net assets of Fence had a provisional fair value of $202 million, including any contingent liabilities. At the time of the business combination, Fence had a contingent liability with a fair value
of $30 million. At 30 November 2009, the contingent liability met the recognition criteria of IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’ and the revised estimate of this liability was $25 million. The accountant of Fence is yet to account for this revised liability.

whats the diffrence between these two adjustment thanks in advance

[hazratusman]

hi dear sir hope you are fine
q 1 = At the time of the business combination with Margy, Joey has included in the fair value of Margy’s identifiable net assets, an unrecognised contingent liability of $6 million in respect of a warranty claim in progress against Margy. In March 20X4, there was a revision of the estimate of the liability to $5 million. The amount has met the criteria to be recognised as a provision in current liabilities in the financial statements of Margy and the revision of the estimate is deemed to be a measurement period adjustment.

q 2- On 31 July 2008, Grange acquired a 100% of the equity interests of Fence for a cash consideration of $214 million. The identifiable net assets of Fence had a provisional fair value of $202 million, including any contingent liabilities. At the time of the business combination, Fence had a contingent liability with a fair value
of $30 million. At 30 November 2009, the contingent liability met the recognition criteria of IAS 37 ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’ and the revised estimate of this liability was $25 million. The accountant of Fence is yet to account for this revised liability.

sir my qestion is on contingent liabilty and why there is diffrence between two adjustment
= in joey question we add revised contingent liability in net asset movement of subsidray and in goodwill we add the diffrence between intially recorded contingent liability and revised contingent liability in the fair valu of identifable net asset at acquesition however in grange question we add reduction in contingent liability when calculating net asset movement of subsidry and in goodwill we dont add any figure in the fair valu of identifable net asset at acquesition thanks in advance

[Author]

Posts