SIX gives International Minerals a slap on the wrist
28 September 2012 Zurich
Image: Shutterstock
SIX Exchange Regulation has reached an agreement with International Minerals Corporation over incorrectly presenting an income statement, with the company promising to invest in IFRS training for their employees.
In its interim financial statement of 31 December 2011, International Minerals Corporation chose a format of presenting its income statement not permitted under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), resulting in the subtotal for expenses to be understated by $1.9 million (36.6 percent).
In addition, the format selected by International Minerals Corporation failed to identify the amount of revenue for the period. The incorrect presentation did not impact the amount of net income for the period in the amount of $26.3 million presented by International Minerals Corporation.
“Furthermore the notes on the statements 2011/2012 described the securities held as valued at quoted prices in active markets (level 1), even though $395.7 thousand (9.5 percent) could only be valued at historical cost as a proxy for fair value (level 3),” said SIX.
“Even though this incorrect disclosure did not impact the valuation of these securities, readers of financial statements were deprived of qualitatively material information about the valuation methodology.”
In its interim financial statement of 31 December 2011, International Minerals Corporation chose a format of presenting its income statement not permitted under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), resulting in the subtotal for expenses to be understated by $1.9 million (36.6 percent).
In addition, the format selected by International Minerals Corporation failed to identify the amount of revenue for the period. The incorrect presentation did not impact the amount of net income for the period in the amount of $26.3 million presented by International Minerals Corporation.
“Furthermore the notes on the statements 2011/2012 described the securities held as valued at quoted prices in active markets (level 1), even though $395.7 thousand (9.5 percent) could only be valued at historical cost as a proxy for fair value (level 3),” said SIX.
“Even though this incorrect disclosure did not impact the valuation of these securities, readers of financial statements were deprived of qualitatively material information about the valuation methodology.”
NO FEE, NO RISK
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one asset servicing news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Asset Servicing Times
100% ON RETURNS If you invest in only one asset servicing news source this year, make sure it is your free subscription to Asset Servicing Times
