Findings Of Fact Edward J. Tooze holds certificate number R-0434 as a certified public accountant in the State of Florida. Tooze's certificate is currently under suspension pursuant to order of the State Board of Accountancy entered under to authority of Section 473.111(5), Florida Statutes. Tooze, although under suspension, is subject to the authority of the Florida State Board of Accountancy for violations of Chapter 473 and the rules contained in Chapter 21A, Florida Administrative Code. Tooze undertook to provide an audited and an unaudited financial statement for Gull-Aire Corporation on September 30, 1976. Said audited and unaudited financial statements were received into evidence as Composite Exhibit #1. Financial statements are representations made by management, and the fairness of a representation of unaudited statements is solely the responsibility of management. See Section 516.01 of Statements on Auditing Standards, No. 1, (hereinafter referred to as SAS) The auditor's report dated October 4, 1976, prepared by Tooze, states as follows: In accordance with your instructions, we submit herewith the balance sheet of Gull-Aire Corporation as of September 30, 1976. This statement was prepared without audit, and accordingly we do not express an opinion thereon. Each page of the unaudited statement bears the language, "Prepared without audit from books of account and information provided by management." Paragraph 516.04 of SAS provides an example of a disclaimer of opinion as follows: The accompanying balance of x company as of December 31, l9XX, and the related statements of income and retained earnings and changes in financial position for the year then ended were not audited by us and accordingly we do not express an opinion on them. (Signature and date) The form of the disclaimer used by Tooze in the financial statement of Gull-Aire quoted in Paragraph 6 is not identical to the example given in Section 516.04, SAS, No. 1. However, Tooze's statement does reflect that the financial statement was not audited and that Tooze did not express any opinion on it. The notes to the audited financial statement of Gull-Aire Corporation do not include a summary of significant accounting policies used by Tooze in the preparation of the financial statement. While only a balance sheet is shown in both of the Gull-Aire financial statements, retained earnings were reported which were the result of the sale of a parcel of real property. No notes were made on either of the reports explaining this sale, and its treatment, although this was a major business transaction and source of income to the corporation for the period covered. Tooze did not disclose the treatment of income taxes in both the financial statements of Gull-Aire, particularly the tax treatment of the retained earnings in the amount of $45,499.64 from the sale of the real property. Although Tooze issued two financial statements for Gull-Aire Corporation as of September 30, 1976, one audited and one unaudited, he did not state on the second financial statement the reason for its preparation and explain the accounting decisions which resulted in the change of various entries on the second statement. Tooze stated to the Board's investigator that he did not obtain a representation letter from the management of Gull-Aire Corporation. Tooze further stated that he did not prepare a written audit program nor obtain and report what internal controls existed within Gull-Aire Corporation. Tooze also prepared a financial report dated April 30, 1977, for Jack Carlson Company, Inc., which was received into evidence as Exhibit 2. The disclaimer prepared by Tooze in the Jack Carlson financial statement contained in the letter to the Board of Directors of the company dated September 15, 1977, stated as follows: We submit herewith our report on the examination of the books and records of Jack Carlson Company, Inc., for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1977, and the following exhibits: (delete) The terms of our engagement did not include those standard auditing procedures instant to the rendition of an opinion by an independent Certified Public Accountant. The limited scope of our examination precludes our expression of an opinion as to the fairness of the over-all representations herein. The attached statements were made the basis for the preparation of the U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return for the fiscal year ended April 30, 1977. Essentially the same statement is contained in the statements for Albeni Corporation and Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc. No statement of changes in financial position was contained in the financial statement prepared for Jack Carlson Company, Inc. Section 516.08, SAS, No. 1 provides in pertinent part as follows: When financial statement's are issued proporting to present fairly financial position, changes in financial position, the results of operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting procedures, a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entity should be reported as an integral part of the financial statement. (Emphasis supplied) Tooze prepared financial statements for Albeni Corporation which were received as Exhibit #3, and financial statements for Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc., which were received as Exhibit #4. The financial statements of Carlson, Georgetown and Albeni were all unaudited. Tooze did not provide an explanation or note to the financial statements describing significant accounting policies which he applied in preparing the statements. In the financial statement of Albeni Corporation, Tooze indicated that "these interim financial statements are intended primarily for internal management use." The fixed assets in the financial statement of Georgetown Mobile Manor, Inc., constitute $301,642 out of $345,000 of the company's assets. Depreciation and accumulated depreciation are reported as $103,641. The method of computing depreciation was not indicated on the financial statement. In the unaudited financial statements prepared for Carlson and Albeni, the basis of stating inventories and the methods used to determine inventory costs were not disclosed, although inventories constitute a significant percentage of both companys' assets.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Bearing Officer recommends that the Board of Accountancy take no action on the violation of Rule 21A-4.02, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 473.251, Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of April, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director State Board of Accountancy Post Office Box 13475 Gainesville, Florida 32604 Samuel Hankin, Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Mr. Edward J. Tooze 464 Patricia Avenue Dunedin, Florida 33528
The Issue Whether Commercial Carrier Corporation (Petitioner), has the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims in the State of Florida; Whether Petitioner has maintained a net worth of at least $1 million during the period 1999 to 2004; and Whether Petitioner shall post an additional qualifying security deposit to remain qualified to self-insure and the amount of the additional security deposit to be posted.
Findings Of Fact Upon careful consideration, it is found and determined as follows: Petitioner, Commercial Carrier Corporation, is a privately-owned trucking company headquartered in Auburndale, Florida, which has been in business for over 50 years. Petitioner is one of five operating subsidiaries of Comcar Industries, Inc. (Comcar), whose primary business is truckload transportation of general and specialized commodities in the continental United States. Comcar routinely prepares consolidated financial statements reflecting the operations of all five subsidiary companies. Although Petitioner is the nominal Petitioner, Comcar is the de facto Petitioner in this proceeding. All of Comcar’s subsidiaries operate as self- insured in Florida. Petitioner has been self-insured for workers’ compensation in Florida since January 1, 1973. Pursuant to Florida law, Respondent has jurisdiction over Petitioner as a self-insured employer for purposes of workers’ compensation. Under Florida law, the general requirement is that employers must obtain and maintain workers’ compensation insurance coverage. The exception of this general requirement is found in Subsection 440.38(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2004), whereby an employer can seek to qualify to self-insure by "furnishing satisfactory proof to the Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Inc., . . . that it has the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of all current and future claims[.]" FSIGA is a not-for-profit corporation established by Section 440.385, Florida Statutes (2004), to guarantee payment of the covered workers’ compensation claims by employees of self-insurers that become insolvent. Other than governmental entities and public utilities, all self-insurers, including Petitioner, must be members of FSIGA. FSIGA pays the covered claims of current and former insolvent self-insurer members to the extent an insolvent self-insurer’s security deposit is insufficient. An insolvency fund is established and managed by FSIGA for the purpose of meeting the obligations of insolvent members after exhaustion of any security deposit. The insolvency fund is funded by assessments from members of FSIGA. Accordingly, FSIGA and all of its members share an interest in ensuring adherence to the legislative standard that only financially strong employers are granted the privilege to self- insure. To maintain self-insurer status, an employer must submit annual financial statements no later than four months following the end of the self-insured’s fiscal year and furnish satisfactory proof to FSIGA that it has the financial strength necessary to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. The financial statements that must be submitted to FSIGA for financial analysis must be prepared in accordance with the United States Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GAAP-prepared financial statements must show, at all times, a net worth of $1 million. The requirements of furnishing proof of the requisite financial strength and maintaining a net worth of at least $1 million, as shown on the employer’s financial statements, are continuing annual requirements to become and remain qualified to self-insure, and those requirements are applied equally to applicants and current members. FSIGA is required to review the financial strength of its current members. It makes recommendations to Respondent regarding the members’ continuing qualification to self-insure and the amount of security deposit that should be required of each member. If FSIGA determines that a current member does not have the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of all current and estimated future claims, it may recommend that Respondent require an increase in the member’s security deposit. FSIGA operates under a statutorily-approved plan of operations. FSIGA’s plan of operation provides that its executive director has the responsibility to make FSIGA’s recommendations to Respondent. FSIGA’s recommendations are based upon a review of the financial information collected from member employers. It may include recommendations regarding the appropriate security deposit amount necessary for a self-insured employer to demonstrate that it has the financial strength to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. Respondent is required to accept FSIGA’s recommendations unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the recommendations are erroneous. 2002 Financial Review of Petitioner Petitioner is currently a member of FSIGA and has posted a qualifying security deposit of $2,500,000.00. On October 2, 2002, Brian D. Gee, C.P.A., who is now FSIGA’s executive director, completed a review of Petitioner’s audited financial statements for 1999, 2000, and 2001. Gee was FSIGA's financial analyst, responsible for conducting financial reviews and developing information for FSIGA's executive director, to determine the financial strength of self-insured members and make recommendations to Respondent. Gee’s review of Petitioner’s financial statement consisted of an assessment of Petitioner’s liquidity, profitability, degree of leverage, liabilities compared to net worth, and cash flow generated by operations. He also reviewed the financial statements to determine if Petitioner was maintaining a net worth of at least $1 million. Gee concluded that Petitioner did not have the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of current and estimated future workers’ compensation claims. On October 8, 2002, FSIGA's executive director forwarded a letter to the Division of Workers’ Compensation, Department of Insurance (now Respondent). He recommended to Respondent that Petitioner be ordered to increase its security deposit to 150 percent of actuarially determined loss reserves. FSIGA’s recommendations were reviewed by Cynthia Shaw, assistant general counsel for the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Shaw drafted a letter for signature by Mark Casteel, General Counsel for Respondent, which adopted FSIGA's recommendations. Casteel signed that letter dated October 28, 2002, without revision or discussion. Shaw, an attorney, has no financial background or expertise. Shaw did not perform any additional financial analysis. Additionally, since Respondent did not have a CPA firm under contract, FSIGA’s recommendation was not reviewed by anyone with financial background before being transmitted to Petitioner. Petitioner responded to the October 28, 2002, directive from Respondent by filing a petition requesting a formal administrative hearing. Petitioner failed to file financial statements with FSIGA within four months following the end of its 2000 and 2001 fiscal years. Petitioner’s failure to timely file financial reports for 2000 and 2001 was due to the fact that it was in default on certain loan covenants and was engaged in negotiations with its lenders. In 1999 and 2000, Petitioner incurred additional long-term debt to finance the purchase of a new fleet of trucks. Petitioner’s creditors had exercised their right for accelerated payment of the outstanding loan balances, which by the end of 2001, was approximately $205 million. In 2001 and 2002, Petitioner entered into negotiations with its creditors to amend and restate its loan agreements. In 2002, Petitioner implemented a business plan calling for the sale of non-core assets, reduction of long-term debt, and transition from purchasing to leasing truck tractors. In July 2002, Petitioner entered into amended and restated loan agreements with its creditors. In order to secure the amended and restated loan agreements, Petitioner was required to pay increased interest, pledge substantially all of its property to secure the loans, pay the lenders $3.3 million, provide certain lenders with warrants to acquire an equity interest in Petitioner under certain conditions and agree to restrictions on how it could use cash generated by its operations and asset sales. Petitioner timely made all principal and interest payments due pursuant to the restated credit agreement and maintained compliance with all required financial ratios and standards. Furthermore, Petitioner continued to timely pay all claims for current and estimated future claims under its workers’ compensation system. Following execution of the amended and restated loan agreements, Petitioner’s auditors prepared the financial statements of 2001, which Petitioner then filed with FSIGA. Separate audited financial statements for 2000 were never filed with FSIGA, although prior-year financial results were shown (without footnotes) on the audited 2001 financial statements. With respect to liquidity, Petitioner’s financial statements showed a current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) of 1.41 at December 28, 2001. It did not disclose that Petitioner had any available funds under its revolving credit line as of December 28, 2001. Although Petitioner’s current ratio was acceptable, further analysis raised serious concern regarding Petitioner’s financial strength. With respect to Petitioner’s capital structure, the financial statement review showed that Petitioner’s total liabilities-to-book-equity ratio deteriorated from 4.91 at December 1999 to 30.46 at December 28, 2001. This deterioration reasonably raised concern because Petitioner became much more heavily leveraged from 1999 to 2001, relying much more heavily on debt to fund its operations. FSIGA concluded, Petitioner’s financial statement showed a "very weak capital structure." The impact of the increasing reliance on debt was marked by the end of 2001, when the financial statements showed that Petitioner was in default of its debt covenants at December 28, 2001. To address its defaults, Petitioner entered into an agreement to restructure its debt by which the creditors waived the defaults in return for imposing additional restrictions on Petitioner as described in paragraph 20 above. Although Petitioner maintained a net worth of $11.1 million at the end of 2001, Petitioner’s net worth at the end of 2001 was significantly lower than its net worth of $74.8 million at the end of 2000. In addition, the financial statement review showed that Petitioner had incurred net losses of $24.2 million, $39.5 million, and $5.7 million for the years 2001, 2000, and 1999, respectively. These losses were substantial and raised significant concerns about Petitioner’s financial strength. The 2002 financial review of Petitioner also showed a substantial decline in Petitioner’s cash flow from operations, from positive $32.6 million for 1999 to negative $2.1 million for 2001. This meant that in 2001, Petitioner was spending more cash in its operating activities than it was collecting. At the time FSIGA made its recommendation to Respondent, neither FSIGA nor Respondent had current information from Petitioner regarding the amount of Petitioner’s net outstanding liability for workers’ compensation claims in Florida. This is because Petitioner failed to file the Form SI-20 report that had been due on August 31, 2002. From October 2002 until December 14, 2004, FSIGA and Respondent did not have accurate information in regard to the amount of Petitioner’s outstanding liability for workers’ compensation claims in Florida, because Petitioner did not file its required Forms SI-17 and SI-20 reports or provide an actuarial study. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence disputing the reasonableness of FSIGA’s 2002 assessment of Petitioner’s financial statements or of FSIGA’s conclusions based thereon regarding Petitioner’s lack of financial strength in 2002. Based on FSIGA’s analysis of Petitioner’s 2001 financial statements and the financial statements for the two preceding years, FSIGA reasonably concluded that Petitioner had not demonstrated that it had the financial strength to ensure payment of current and future workers’ compensation claims. Based on the information then available to it, FSIGA made the correct recommendation to Respondent. There was no clear and convincing evidence available to Respondent that demonstrates FSIGA's recommendation was erroneous, instead, the available evidence supports FSIGA’s recommendation. Accordingly, Respondent’s direction to Petitioner to provide an actuarial report and post additional security was reasonable and appropriate. Continuing Financial Review of Petitioner After 2002. In November 2002, Petitioner challenged Respondent’s determination and requested a formal administrative hearing. Petitioner requested that Respondent hold the petition in abeyance. The request was granted, and the petition was not filed with DOAH until July 9, 2004. During this period, Respondent re-examined Petitioner’s financial strength. Following its business plan, on January 16, 2004, Petitioner refinanced its debt. While there was conflicting testimony regarding whether the actual interest on the refinanced debt was lower than on the debt it replaced, it was undisputed that $30 million of the refinanced debt was carrying an interest rate of 19 percent. This is a higher rate than the nine-percent and 11-percent interest applicable to the earlier debt. It is undisputed that substantially all of Petitioner’s property is pledged to secure the 2004 refinanced indebtedness, and there continues to be restrictions on Petitioner’s use of cash generated by its operations. However, the 19-percent interest on a portion of the January 2004 refinancing has now caused Petitioner to go into the lending market to attempt to refinance its debt once again. Nevertheless, the refinancing of its long-term debt has reduced its financing costs. Since Respondent’s 2002 request that Petitioner provide an actuarial report and post an additional security deposit, FSIGA has reviewed Petitioner’s audited financial statements for the years ended December 27, 2002, and December 26, 2003, as well as Petitioner’s unaudited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004. The financial information received from Petitioner since the 2002 review has not resulted in FSIGA changing its 2002 recommendations. Petitioner’s 2002, 2003, and 2004 financial statements revealed that Petitioner’s net worth had fallen below the required $1 million in each of those three years. The 2002 and 2003 financial statements also show that Petitioner continued to experience net losses. Petitioner sustained a net loss of $12.1 million for the year ended December 27, 2002, and a net loss of $9.9 million for the year ended December 26, 2003. Petitioner’s cash flow statement shows a $4.8 million decrease in cash in 2002 and a $2 million decrease in cash in 2003. Petitioner’s 2004 unaudited financial statements indicate net income of $4.1 million for 2004. However, because the 2004 financial statements are unaudited, whether adjustments may be necessary following the audit are unknown at this time. Financial statements prepared without footnotes are not prepared in accordance with GAAP. Even if the unaudited results are confirmed in audited financial statements, 2004 would be the first year that Petitioner has recognized net income since 1998, following a five-year string of annual losses totaling $90 million. Petitioner’s Financial Status Evidenced at Final Hearing At the final hearing, to demonstrate that it had the financial strength necessary to ensure the timely payment of current and future workers’ compensation claims, Petitioner presented testimony of its expert witness, Lawrence Hirsh, C.P.A. He posited that Petitioner's financial strength should be measured by determining its ability to generate cash flow through a calculation of its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). EBITDA is a measure commonly used by financial institutions to evaluate the ability of a company to generate cash flows and in determining whether to extend credit or to make investments. Petitioner’s lenders evaluated its EBITDA before deciding to refinance its credit facility in 2002 and to refinance its long-term debt in 2004. However, EBITDA is not a calculation provided for under GAAP. GAAP provides a method for determining cash flows and that method is used in preparing the portion of a GAAP- compliant financial statement called the "Statement of Cash Flows." Evidence presented by Respondent demonstrated that EBITDA has many limitations and is not a good proxy for cash flow. Application of EBITDA to Petitioner’s known financial performance in the past consistently overstates Petitioner’s ability to generate cash flow from operations. In every year from 1999 through 2003, Petitioner’s cash flow from operations, as shown on Petitioner’s cash flow statement that was prepared in accordance with GAAP, was significantly lower than the amount calculated for EBITDA by Hirsh: Year Petitioner's Cash Flow From Operations as Shown on GAAP-Compliant Cash Flow Statement EBITDA 1999 $32.6 million $61.1 million 2000 $344,000 $21.2 million 2001 ($2.1 million) $40.3 million 2002 $11.9 million $54.8 million 2003 $12.3 million $42.3 million Petitioner's unaudited 2004 cash flow statement showed $18.1 million in cash flow from operations. This is significantly lower than the $52.9 million in EBITDA calculated for 2004. Similarly, each year from 1999 to 2003, Hirsh's EBITDA's calculation grossly exceeds Petitioner's net loss as shown on its financial statements that were prepared in accordance with GAAP: Petitioner's Cash Flow From Operations as Year Shown on GAAP-Compliant Cash Flow Statement EBITDA 1999 (5.7 million) $61.1 million 2000 ($39.5 million) $21.2 million 2001 ($24.2 million) $40.3 million 2002 ($12.1 million) $54.8 million 2003 ($9.9 million) $42.3 million EBITDA is also misleading because it includes gain from the sale of assets. To the extent that Petitioner is selling its operating assets, such as trucks, Petitioner will have to expend cash to replace the assets, either by lease or purchase. To the extent that Petitioner is selling non-core assets, such as its unused real property, Petitioner cannot continue this practice indefinitely. Petitioner will soon run out of assets to sell. Therefore, cash generated from the sale of operating assets and non-core assets should not be considered in determining Petitioner's ability to generate cash from operating activities. Petitioner sought to bolster its evidence of its financial strength through testimony that it had received a credit rating in November 2003 from Standard & Poor's of B-plus. However, a B-rating is not an investment grade rating. It means that while a company currently has the capacity to meet its debt obligations, adverse business, financial, or economic conditions likely will impair the obligor's capacity or willingness to meet its financial commitment on the obligations in the future. In addition, Petitioner received a lower credit rating of B-3 from Moody's Investment Services. A B-3 rating from Moody's Investment Services is equivalent to a B minus rating from Standard & Poor's. The Standard & Poor's and Moody's credit ratings do not effectively demonstrate that Petitioner has the financial strength necessary to ensure the payment of current and future workers' compensation claims. Respondent's expert witness, Dr. Sondhi, disputed Petitioner's calculation of its EBITDA interest coverage ratio because Petitioner's calculation was based on interest paid as opposed to interest expense, and it failed to adjust for non-recurring items. Petitioner's interest expense is greater than the interest paid partly because Petitioner's loan agreement provides that a portion of the interest payments will accrue monthly with payments deferred until the final prepayment date or other principal payment milestone dates. Petitioner's calculation of the EBITDA interest coverage ratio was not performed in accordance with Standard & Poor's formula for determining the EBITDA interest coverage ratio. Even if the calculation of EBITDA interest coverage ratio was an appropriate measure of Petitioner's financial strength, the formula used by Petitioner to calculate the ratio overstates the results and shows greater financial strength than would be shown if the Standard & Poor's formula had been used. For the reasons noted above, Petitioner's EBITDA calculations are rejected as an inappropriate, overstated method to assess whether a company has the financial strength necessary to ensure the payment of current and future workers' compensation claims. Petitioner also argued that it had the required financial strength because it has paid all workers' compensation claims to-date and because, at the end of 2004, it had a cash balance of $26.6 million in the bank. The ability to currently pay workers' compensation claims does not demonstrate the financial strength to ensure the payment of workers' compensation claims in the future. Current capacity to pay is only part of the statutory standard, which is a risk-based standard requiring a company to ensure payment into the future because of the long period of time that workers' compensation claim payments continue. Likewise, having cash in the bank in the amount of $26.6 million at the end of 2004, does not demonstrate the required financial strength. Current cash balance is not an indicator, by itself, of financial strength to ensure payment in the future. Given Petitioner's extensive operating expenses, $26.6 million represents a very small amount of operating expenses. Petitioner’s consolidated balance sheets list its assets at historical or book cost, the cost at which those assets were purchased, and not at their current fair market value. Petitioner argues that adjusting the book values of assets to current market value would provide the most accurate assessment of Petitioner's net worth. To demonstrate that it has maintained a net worth of $1 million, Petitioner presented testimony that when determining net worth, the fair market value of its assets should be considered in place of the book value of its assets that is reflected on its balance sheet. However, GAAP does not permit the value of assets to be shown at fair market value and instead, requires that assets be shown at book value. Even if GAAP permitted the use of fair market value of assets to be used on a balance sheet, Petitioner did not offer any admissible evidence to prove the current fair market value of its assets for 2002, 2003, and 2004. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the use of the current fair market value of assets would result in Petitioner's financial statements showing a net worth at all times of at least $1 million. Respondent has interpreted the term "net worth," as it is used in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.106, to mean the total assets of a company as reflected on the balance sheet, minus the total liabilities of the company as reflected on the balance sheet. Respondent's interpretation of the term "net worth" is a reasonable interpretation, consistent with the interpretation given to the term by accountants and financial analysts. The more credible expert testimony is that net worth appears on the balance sheet as stockholders' or shareholders' equity. Based on the above interpretation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.106, for each year from 2002 through 2004, Petitioner has failed to maintain a net worth of at least $1 million. The preponderance of evidence demonstrates Petitioner's net worth was negative $976,000, and negative $10.8 million for the years ended December 27, 2002, and December 26, 2003, respectively. In addition, Petitioner's unaudited financial statements for 2004 show that Petitioner maintained a negative net worth of $6.7 million as of December 31, 2004. Although Petitioner's financial condition has strengthened significantly from year end 2001 to year end 2004, based on the evidence, Petitioner does not now have the financial strength necessary to ensure payment of current and future workers' compensation claims, nor has Petitioner maintained a net worth of at least $1 million. Therefore, an additional security deposit is required for Petitioner to remain qualified as a self-insurer. In May 2002, Thomas Lowe was employed by Petitioner as its vice-president in charge of Risk Management. Lowe instituted a number of risk management practices which have significantly reduced the number and costs of Petitioner's workers' compensation claims. In 2001, Petitioner's workers' compensation claims were adjusted by three separate third-party administrators (TPAs), resulting in three overlapping data bases of claims information. Petitioner was unable to reconcile this overlapping claims information and, consequently, was unable to accurately determine the amount of its workers' compensation reserves for 2001. As a result of its inability to determine its workers' compensation reserves in 2001, Petitioner did not submit the required SI-17 and SI-20 forms to FSIGA in 2002 and 2003. Petitioner informed FSIGA of the difficulty it was having in reconciling its claims data for 2001 and paid the required penalties for its inability to timely submit Forms SI-17 and SI-20 in 2002 and 2003. Failure to submit these forms did not affect Petitioner's ability to make timely payments of all current and estimated future workers' compensation claims. In 2004, Petitioner submitted Forms SI-17 to FSIGA reflecting incurred workers' compensation losses for calendar years 2002 and 2003. On December 14, 2004, Petitioner submitted Form SI-20 to FSIGA, reflecting that the present value of its estimated loss reserves was $6,894,776.00. Anthony Gripps, Sr., an independent actuary who is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries, reviewed Petitioner's workers' compensation claims data pursuant to Respondent's October 28, 2002, directive. Grippa issued two reports, one dated December 1, 2004, and the other dated December 15, 2004. Grippa concluded that the present value of Petitioner's workers' compensation loss reserves as of September 30, 2004, was $6,831,175.00. The parties stipulated to Grippa's finding that the amount of Petitioner's workers' compensation loss reserves as of September 20, 2004, was $6,831,175.00. Petitioner's financial statements for 2004 had not been audited as of the final hearing, but were received into evidence in unaudited form. There was no evidence presented that Petitioner's 2004 financial statements do not accurately represent its financial performance in 2004 and its financial condition as of December 31, 2004. Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.101(4) does not require Petitioner to submit audited financial statements as it has been self-insured since prior to January 1, 1997. Petitioner timely supplied Respondent with unaudited financial statements at least annually as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.101(4). Petitioner currently has a qualified security deposit of $2,500,000.00 deposited with FSIGA. In 2002, FSIGA recommended that in light of Petitioner's "significant net losses and very weak capital structure," Petitioner's security deposit should be increased to 150 percent of the actuarially determined loss reserves. Upon consideration of all of Petitioner's financial statements from 1999 through 2004, FSIGA's recommendation should be followed. Petitioner's actuarially determined loss reserves for all current and estimated future workers' compensation claims are $6,831,175.00. One hundred and fifty percent of the actuarially determined loss reserves of $6,831,175 equals $10,246,762.50. Petitioner presented no evidence of a different amount of security deposit increase that would be sufficient assuming one were to find that Petitioner lacks the financial strength to ensure payment of future workers' compensation claims or that Petitioner has failed to maintain a net worth of at least $1 million.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The chief financial officer issue a final order determining that: (i) Petitioner does not have the financial strength to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims; and (ii) Petitioner has failed to maintain a net worth of at least $1 million; and Because Petitioner has failed to meet the requirements to continue self-insuring, the final order should require Petitioner to post an additional security deposit in the amount of $7,746,762.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Basic is a general contractor specializing in asphalt resurfacing and related construction activities. Its principal offices are in Orlando, Florida. Basic is not currently qualified to bid on construction projects to be let by DOT. Its certificate of qualification expired on June 30, 1984. Until the expiration, Basic had been continuously qualified by DOT to bid on such jobs since 1975. During the time it was qualified, Basic successfully performed approximately fifty state jobs. In early September, 1984, Basic received its annual audited financial statement from its accountants, Fox and Company (Fox), which reflected Basic's financial condition for the year ending on March 31, 1984. On or about September 14, 1984, Basic filed its application for renewal of its certificate of qualification. With the application, Basic filed the audited financial statement prepared by Fox and Company and an additional financial statement prepared by Basic's new accountants, Colley, Trumbower and Howell (Colley). This Colley financial statement was merely a compilation and covered the period April 1, 1984 through June 30, 1984. The audited statement of Fox contained the opinion of a certified public accountant; the compilation of Colley contained no opinion. The audited statement preceded the date of filing by approximately 170 days. DOT reviewed the application and denied it on the ground that the financial statements submitted were of a date more than 120 days prior to the application DOT did not perform a fiscal analysis or further review of the application after it determined that the application did not contain what it believed to be the necessary financial statements. In response to the denial, Basic had Colley prepare an additional financial statement which reflected its financial condition through September 30, 1984. This financial statement was a review and did not contain an opinion of a certified public accountant (See transcript p 47, lines 22 and 23). DOT declined to accept this review. An "audited" financial statement is a financial statement that has been subjected to full audit scrutiny and verification. A compiled financial statement is merely a compilation of financial information as supplied by the client. A reviewed financial statement consists of inquiries and compilation of financial data with application of analytical procedures and is less in scope than an audited financial statement. An "opinion" is a term of art in the field of accounting and refers to an opinion that the basic financial information taken as a whole is fairly stated in all material respects and is in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. A qualified opinion is subject to the same definition and level of scrutiny, but is qualified as it relates to one or more items in the financial statement. DOT only accepts audited financial statements which express an opinion. The financial information in the reviewed financial statement, when read in conjunction with the audited financial statement reflects that Basic is in an adequate financial situation with positive current rates and a substantial adjusted net worth. Basic is making a profit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Basic for a certificate of qualification. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1985.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant in the state of Florida based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed to practice as a certified public accountant ("CPA") in the state of Florida, having been issued license number AC0001638. Respondent's most recent business address was 224 North Federal Highway, Suite #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Petitioner has presented evidence of a number of Final Orders entered by the Florida Board of Accountancy (the "Board") against Respondent as a result of prior disciplinary action initiated by Petitioner. While the records presented are somewhat confusing and bear several different case numbers, it appears that, as a result of the various cases, Respondent has been on probation for approximately the last 12 years. According to the records presented, the first action taken against Respondent's license is reflected in a Final Order dated December 31, 1981 and filed on February 8, 1982 in DPR Case Number 0000499. That Final Order indicates that a stipulation executed by Respondent "as to facts, law and discipline" was accepted by the Board "with no changes." The stipulation referenced in that Final Order was not included with the exhibits entered into evidence in this proceeding. Thus, the "facts, law and discipline" are not of record in this case. Next, the Board entered a Final Order dated May 11, 1982 and filed on May 17, 1982 in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 imposing a $1,000 fine against Respondent and suspending his license for eighteen (18) months. An Amended Final Order dated September 3, 1982 was filed in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 on September 15, 1982. That Amended Final Order accepted a signed stipulation dated July 30, 1982 and modified the Final Order entered on May 11, 1982. In lieu of the fine and suspension imposed in the May 11 Final Order, the Amended Final Order placed Respondent on probation for five years with a requirement for a review of Respondent's practice at the end of each year by a CPA selected by the Department at Respondent's expense. The independent certified public accountant was supposed to submit written and oral reports to the Board and the Department regarding Respondent's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules governing the accounting profession. The Stipulation which was incorporated into the Amended Final Order specifically required Respondent to comply "with all provisions of Chapter 455 and 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto." The Stipulation provided in part as follows: The Board shall determine at a public hearing whether [Respondent] has complied with Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. and the rules promulgated thereto. The Board may restrict or prohibit [Respondent's] practice of public accountancy during his period of probation as it deems necessary to protect the public safety and welfare. It is clearly understood and agreed that, in the event the DEPARTMENT, the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel find sufficient evidence to believe reasonable cause exists that [Respondent] has violated any of the conditions of probation as outlined above, a notice of said violation shall be sent to [Respondent], by certified mail, setting forth the nature of the alleged violation and an emergency hearing will be held by the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel, and upon a find [sic] of probable cause, [Respondent's] probation may be vacated and his license to practice accountancy in the State of Florida, subject to automatic suspension, with further disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. If Respondent has not complied with all the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation and final order of the BOARD, the BOARD shall enter an Order imposing such further terms and conditions of probation pursuant to the statutory powers set forth in 473.323(1)(3), F.S., and shall further cause said matter to be referred to the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel or such other jurisdictional authority as may be established for purposes of determining probable cause and initiating further administrative and/or judicial action against the Respondent. * * * [Respondent] expressly waives all further procedural steps and expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of a joint stipulation of facts, conclusions of law and imposition of discipline, and the final order of the BOARD incorporating said stipulation. At a meeting on January 21, 1985, the Florida Board of Accountancy reviewed a report from the consultant hired to conduct the inspection and review of Respondent's public accountancy practice in accordance with the terms of the Amended Final Order entered on September 15, 1982. Based upon its review of the consultant's report, the Board imposed an additional condition of probation that all audits, reviews and compilations prepared by Respondent were to be reviewed prior to their issuance by a CPA selected by Respondent at Respondent's expense. This additional aspect of Respondent's probation was incorporated in a Final Order dated February 15, 1985 and entered on February 28, 1985 in DPR Case Number 0016369. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 4, 1985, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating the terms of his probation by issuing compilations without prior review by another CPA. This Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 0063064. As reflected in a Final Order dated February 23, 1987 and filed on March 10, 1987 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Respondent's probation was extended until September 1988 based upon a signed Stipulation dated November 16, 1986 which was accepted by the Board during its meeting on January 30, 1987. As a result of the March 10, 1987 Final Order extending Respondent's probation, Respondent was required to continue to obtain review and approval by an independent CPA prior to issuance of any audited financial statements, reviewed financial statements and compiled financial statements and related accountant's reports. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 7, 1989 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as a result of his issuance of financial statements without prior review by a CPA as required by the previous Final Orders entered against Respondent. The Complaint did not specify any date(s) or specific financial statements involved. At a meeting on February 22, 1990, the Board accepted a Counter- Settlement Stipulation signed by Respondent on March 26, 1990 in Case Number 0063064. The Board entered a Final Order dated April 4, 1990 and filed on April 10, 1990 confirming its acceptance of the Counter-Stipulation. 2/ The Counter- Settlement Stipulation incorporated in the April 1990 Final Order extended Respondent's probation "until the terms of probation have been met." The terms of probation were stated to be: That the Respondent shall not violate the provisions of Chapters 455 or 473, Florida Statutes or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto or the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant consultant shall interview the Respondent's clients to determine the type of work product they are receiving from the Respondent. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant Consultant shall conduct a review of the Respondent's tax practice along with work papers at the Respondent's expense. The Counter-Stipulation further provided that: Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps, and expressively waives [sic] all rights to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the joint stipulation and the Final Order of the Board, if said stipulation is accepted by the Board and incorporated in the Final Order.... In early 1991, Marlyn Felsing, a CPA retained as a consultant to conduct a review of Respondent's work pursuant to the terms of his probation, met with Respondent and reviewed financial statements, work papers and various tax returns prepared by Respondent for his clients. Felsing reviewed the financial statements and/or business tax returns for approximately four of Respondent's business clients and reviewed the personal income tax returns for approximately three of Respondent's clients who were business owners. He also reviewed all of the related work papers and discussed his review with Respondent. Felsing prepared a report dated April 23, 1991 detailing several problems and deficiencies he found during his review. A copy of Felsing's report was offered into evidence in this case and he testified at the hearing regarding many of those findings. This evidence was offered in support of the charges in the First DOAH Complaint (DOAH Case Number 92-3421) as amended. Neither Felsing's report nor any of his findings are specifically alleged in the First DOAH Complaint. That Complaint referenced a probation report which "revealed deficiencies which were brought before the Probable Cause Panel, and it was determined that Respondent had violated the terms of the Final Order." As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the First DOAH Complaint was filed on January 23, 1992. As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991, and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 0063064, the Board reviewed a probation report during its meeting on May 21, 1991 and approved a settlement stipulation extending the probation imposed by the April 4, 1990 Final Order for a period of one (1) year. The settlement stipulation referenced in this July 1, 1991 Order has not been offered into evidence in this proceeding. As best can be determined from the evidence presented in this case, the Final Order entered in DPR Case Number 0063064 on July 1, 1991, was entered after review of the probation report prepared by Marlyn Felsing on April 23, 1991. Thus, it appears that the Board has already taken final action with respect to the deficiencies found in Felsing's report. During the Board Meeting on May 21, 1991, the Board also considered whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent with respect to another Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on January 7, 1991. That new Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 95979 and contained allegations that Respondent "was associated with personal financial statements for Michael Raybeck which did not meet the appropriate standards." As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991 and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 95979, the Board during its May 21, 1991 meeting accepted a settlement stipulation signed by Respondent on April 15, 1991. In that settlement stipulation, Respondent admitted the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 95979. The Settlement Stipulation provided as follows: * * * Stipulated Disposition 2. Respondent's license to practice public accounting is currently on probation in case number 63064. Probation in this case shall run concurrently with the probation in case number 63064. The same CPA consultant who is assigned to review the Respondent's practice in Case Number 63064 shall also review the personal financial statements the Respondent's office prepares. The consultant shall also review the Respondent's records to determine whether he is accepting commissions. These additional terms shall also be paid for by the Respondent. * * * 5. Respondent and the Department fully under- stand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detained [sic] in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. * * * 8. This Settlement Stipulation is [sic] an admission of any liability on behalf of the Respondent and is being entered into merely to resolve a dispute. It shall not be admissible in any court of law or any subsequent adminis- trative proceeding for any purpose. As reflected in an Order dated September 29, 1992 and filed on September 30, 1992 in DPR Case Number 90-95979, the Board reviewed a probation report during its September 24, 1992 meeting and determined "that the probation imposed upon Respondent by the Final Order dated July 1, 1991, shall be extended and/or modified as follows: extend probation and defer action until Case Number 90-13254 is resolved." Case Number 90-13254 is the Second DOAH Complaint, which was filed on July 6, 1992 (DOAH Case Number 92-5696). The Second DOAH Complaint includes specific allegations against Respondent based upon his purported preparation of misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The Second DOAH Complaint The evidence presented in this case established that Respondent provided a number of accounting services to American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The exact nature and scope of the services provided by Respondent are not entirely clear. Respondent's records of his engagement include a balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987; Consolidated Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. as of August 25, 1987; Interim Compiled Financial Statements, American British Enterprises, March 31, 1988; Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. November 30, 1988; and Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc., December 31, 1988. The Second DOAH Complaint, as amended, alleges that the financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above were included in due diligence packages for American British Enterprises and were distributed to broker- dealers. No persuasive evidence was presented regarding any such distribution. The Second DOAH Complaint also alleges that "Respondent distributed misleading financial statements to brokers with the purpose of driving up the price of the stock so they could sell shares they controlled at a profit." No evidence was presented to support this allegation. Respondent's counsel suggested that all of the financial statements in question were simply drafts and were not intended to be issued. The evidence established that Respondent executed a letter in connection with the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants which provided as follows: I have examined the accompanying Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 whose sole Assets are Cash and [sic] Purchase Deposit. My examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and accordingly, included such procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances. In my opinion the enclosed Balance Sheet represents the financial position of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. Similarly, Respondent's records include a signed letter to the Board of Directors of American British Enterprises in connection with the August 28, 1987 Consolidated Balance Sheet. That letter provides that Respondent conducted an examination "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances." The letter further opines that the financial statements "present fairly the Consolidated Financial Position...[of the companies] in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals." Respondent's records also include a signed letter regarding both the November, 1988 and December, 1988 Financial Statements for American British Enterprises indicating that Respondent had conducted an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and that, in his opinion, the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position" of the company as of the stated date. There is no indication on any of these financial statements that they were drafts that were not to be issued. Aside from the letters noted in paragraph 22, the only evidence presented that any of the financial statements listed in paragraph 19 above were issued was the testimony of one of Petitioner's experts who suggested that the statements had to have been issued since they were found in the SEC's files. However, no direct evidence was presented to establish that any investors or potential investors received the financial statements. Moreover, no evidence was presented that any such investors suffered a loss as a result of their reliance upon the financial statements. Certified public accountants are required to utilize specific guidelines in the performance of accounting services. Those guidelines are codified in the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services ("SSARS"). The failure to abide by the SSARS guidelines constitutes performance below acceptable accounting standards. Petitioner has presented testimony from two experts regarding the deficiencies in the various financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above. Many of the problems cited by Petitioner's experts relate to alleged deficiencies in Respondent's work papers. Respondent's expert has challenged some of those alleged deficiencies. Because the work papers have not been offered into evidence, it is impossible to resolve some of the conflicts in the experts' opinions. Nonetheless, the evidence was sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent's work was not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals in several respects and the financial reports identified in paragraph 19 failed to comply with the SSARS in several ways. The August 17, 1987 balance sheet of Federal Restaurants indicates that the only assets of the company were cash and a purchase deposit on a contract to acquire a restaurant. The balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987 has no notes to it. Accounting Principals Board ("APB") Opinion 22 provides that a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entities should be included as an integral part of the financial statements. In this particular instance, the omission of accounting policies is of minor importance since the balance sheet only reflects two assets: cash being held in escrow and a deposit on a contract to purchase a restaurant (the "Purchase Contract"). As discussed below, none of the financial statements prepared by Respondent disclosed the terms of the Purchase Contract. Furthermore, it appears from other documents in Respondent's records that the corporation is wholly owned by American British Enterprises and/or is jointly controlled, but there is no disclosure of that relationship in the financial statements. These omissions are significant deficiencies which have not been explained. Statement of Auditing Standards ("SAS") 41 requires work papers to support the conclusions of an audit. According to SAS 41, the work papers constitute the principal record of the work that the auditor has done and the conclusions that he has reached concerning significant matters. Respondent's records do not include work papers for the August 17, 1987 audit. SAS 22 provides guidance to an independent auditor making an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards on the considerations and procedures applicable to planning and supervision, including preparing an audit program, obtaining knowledge of the entity's business, and dealing with differences of opinion among firm personnel. While there is conflicting evidence as to what was included in Respondent's work papers, the evidence was clear that Respondent's records for the August 17, 1987 audit do not comply with the requirements of SAS 22, because there was no clearly identified planning memos or audit programs. In fact, there is not even an engagement letter. SAS 19 requires an independent auditor to obtain certain written representations from management as part of an examination made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and provides guidance concerning the representations to be obtained. Petitioner's experts contend that Respondent's work papers do not include an appropriate representation letter from management for any of the Financial Statements. Respondent's expert contends there was such a letter with respect to the August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements. While it is not clear what is contained in the records, it is clear that the records do not clarify conflicting documentation in Respondent's work papers regarding the relationship between Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not include a clear statement from management regarding the terms of the Purchase Contract and the apparent contingencies involved with that Contract. Consequently, Respondent has failed to comply with SAS 19 and SAS 45 (which addresses related-party disclosures). The August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are not properly consolidated in accordance with Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") 51. In addition, the consolidated Financial Statements do not include the disclosures required by Accounting Principals Board Opinion 22. Respondent's expert contends that the statements were mistakenly entitled and they should have been captioned as "combined" rather than consolidated financial statements. Even if this after the fact justification is accepted, the statements do not adequately disclose the relationship between the companies. Respondent's expert suggests that the August 25 Consolidated Financial Statement for American British Enterprises and Federal Restaurants reflects a voidable acquisition of Federal Restaurants by American British Enterprises. If this interpretation is accepted, the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet for Federal Restaurants was not necessarily misleading for failure to disclose its relationship with American British Enterprises. However, the August 25, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are incomplete since the transaction is not fully explained. Moreover, there is no disclosure that the companies were apparently under common control or ownership. With respect to the November, 1988 balance sheet of American British Enterprises, the evidence established that there was a discrepancy between the amount reflected in the financial statement for a note receivable which was the major asset of the corporation and the confirmation in the work papers regarding that asset. While this discrepancy may have been due to a discount and/or accrued interest, no explanation is provided. The discrepancy constitutes a violation of SAS 1, Section 331, which addresses the appropriate background information for receivables, and SAS 1, Section 530 which addresses the dating of the auditor's report. If the discrepancy is due to a discount, Respondent failed to comply with APB Opinion 6, paragraph 14 which requires unearned discounts to be shown as a deduction from the related receivable and/or APB Opinion 21, paragraph 16 which provides for the discount or premium to be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction from or addition to the face amount of the note. The work papers for the November audit do not include a reconciliation between the 1982 financial statements of the predecessor corporation and the 1987 statements. There is no documentation of efforts to communicate with the prior auditor nor is there any discussion of the consistency of application of accounting principals between the two statements. As a consequence, the statements do not conform with SAS 7 which addresses communications with a prior auditor. The work papers fail to reflect any audit work being performed on the appraisal for the equipment collateralizing the note. In addition, the work papers include a confirmation from the stock transfer agent that doesn't agree with the number of shares reflected on the financial statement. There is no explanation for this discrepancy nor is there any clear indication of the audit work performed. The financial statements also include a footnote referencing a joint venture agreement. Respondent's records do not include any evidence of audit work performed with respect to this venture agreement. The deficiencies noted in paragraph 33 also appear in the December 31, 1988 financial statements for American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not contain an audit file for this December statement. The November 30, 1988 and the December 31, 1988 audits of American British Enterprises do not contain a segregation between current and noncurrent assets. This deficiency is relatively insignificant since the company was essentially just a holding company. However, it does constitute a violation of ARB 43. Similarly, the cash flows in the financial statements were not presented in the appropriate format or style required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 95. However, it appears that all of the necessary information was present. The deficiencies found in the financial statements prepared for Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises constitute negligence on the Respondent's part and establish a failure to exercise professional competence and due professional care in the performance of accounting services. On or about June 14, 1990, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and three other defendants alleging the preparation of false and misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. On August 5, 1991, Respondent executed a Consent of Edwin Tunick to the Entry of a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction in the civil action initiated by the SEC. On September 2, 1991, a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction as to Edwin Tunick was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale Division) in Case Number 90-6483CIV-ZLOCH. That Final Judgment "permanently restrained and enjoined" Respondent from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a) and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C 78 (j)b and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Final Judgment did not include any specific findings of any violations of the federal securities laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-3421 (DPR Case Number 91-09729); finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21A-22.0001, 21A-22.0002, and 21A-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-5696 (DPR Case Number 90-13254) and dismissing the other charges in that Complaint. As penalty for the violations, Respondent should be fined $1,000, and his license should be suspended for three years. Before resuming practice, Respondent should be required to complete such mandatory continuing education courses as may be mandated by the Board and he should be placed on probation for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for a certificate of need was complete.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Intervenor each filed applications in the same batching cycle for certificates of need to establish Medicaid-certified home health agencies in Collier County, District 8. By letter dated October 6, 1994, Respondent advised Petitioner that its application omitted certain elements. The letter requests, among other things, an "audited financial statement," including a balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement for the previous two years' operation. Petitioner's application contained an unaudited financial statement for the part of the year that it had been operation. Incorporated in 1994, Petitioner had been receiving patients only since September or October 1994. Petitioner's agent contacted a representative of Respondent and discussed the omissions letter. A misunderstanding ensued in which Petitioner's agent thought that Respondent's representative said that Petitioner would not be required to submit an audited financial statement because Petitioner had not been in operation for a full fiscal year. In fact, Respondent's representative did not say that. Respondent's policy is to permit applicants to file audited financial statements for a partial year, if that is how long they have been in business. For example, Intervenor included with its application an audited financial statement covering the six-week period that it had been in existence. In this case, it would have been possible for Petitioner to obtain an audited financial statement for a period of time including at least its first month of operation.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the administrative withdrawal of the subject application for a certificate of need. ENTERED on April 24, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 24, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-6: rejected as subordinate. 7-8: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10-11: rejected as not finding of fact. 12-14: rejected as recitation of evidence. 15: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent and Intervenor All are adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Attorney Robert E. Senton P.O. Box 963 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard A. Patterson Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road Suite 301--The Atrium Tallahassee, FL 32303 Attorney Alfred W. Clark 117 South Gadsden Street Suite 201 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Corporation, Southern Insight, Inc., failed to secure payment of workers' compensation coverage as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and the Florida Insurance Code, and if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Department) has lawfully assessed the penalty against Respondent in the amount of $27,805.11.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, which requires that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation coverage for their employees and otherwise comply with the workers' compensation coverage requirements under Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Respondent has been a Florida corporation, actively involved in the construction industry providing framing services, during the period of February 16, 2006, through August 17, 2007 (assessed penalty period). At all times material, Respondent has been an "employer," as defined by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. At all times material, John Cauley has been Respondent's president and sole employee. At no time material did Respondent obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for John Cauley. On August 17, 2007, Department Investigator Lynise Beckstrom conducted a random workers' compensation compliance check of a new home construction site in Palm Coast, Florida. At that time, Ms. Beckstrom observed four men, including John Cauley, framing a new home. Utilizing the Department's Compliance and Coverage Automated System (CCAS) database, which contains all workers' compensation insurance policy information from the carrier to an insured and which further lists all the workers' compensation exemptions in the State of Florida, Ms. Beckstrom determined that for the assessed penalty period, Respondent did not have in effect either a State of Florida workers' compensation insurance policy or a valid, current exemption for its employee, John Cauley. During the assessed penalty period, Respondent paid remuneration to its employee, John Cauley. John Cauley admitted that during the assessed penalty period he was not an independent contractor, as that term is defined in Section 440.02(15)(d)(1), Florida Statutes. Section 440.05, Florida Statutes, allows a corporate officer to apply for a construction certificate of exemption from workers' compensation benefits. Only the named individual on the application is exempt from workers' compensation insurance coverage. On or about April 15, 2006, John Cauley, as Respondent's President, applied for such an exemption. That application was denied. Mr. Cauley received neither an exemption card nor a denial of exemption from the Department. During the assessed penalty period, Respondent was a subcontractor of the contractor, Mass Builders, Inc. 9. Sections 440.107(3) and 440.107(7)(a), Florida Statutes, authorize the Department to issue stop-work orders to employers unable to provide proof of workers' compensation coverage, including proof of a current, valid workers' compensation exemption. Based on the lack of workers' compensation coverage and lack of a current, valid workers' compensation exemption for Respondent corporation's employee, John Cauley, the Department served on Respondent a stop-work order on August 17, 2007. The stop-work order ordered Respondent to cease all business operation for all worksites in the State of Florida. Immediately upon notification by Investigator Beckstrom of his lack of valid exemption, Mr. Cauley submitted a new exemption application, which was granted, bringing Respondent corporation into compliance. However, in order to have the stop-work order lifted so that he can work as a corporation again, Mr. Cauley must pay a percentage of the penalty assessment and enter into a payment plan with the Agency. In the meantime, Mr. Cauley cannot pay the percentage required by the Department if he cannot find work as someone else's employee, which he had been unable to do as of the date of the hearing. Herein, it is not disputed that Respondent was inadvertently out of compliance. Mr. Cauley seeks merely to reduce the amount of the penalty assessment so that removal of the stop-work order against Respondent corporation can be negotiated. On the day the stop-work order was issued, Investigator Beckstrom also served Respondent with a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation," in order to determine a penalty under Section 440.107(7), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-6.015, the Department may request business records for the three years preceding the date of the stop-work order. Logically, however, Ms. Beckstrom only requested business records dating back to February 14, 2006, Respondent's date of incorporation in Florida. The requested records included payroll, bank records, check stubs, invoices, and other related business records. Ms. Beckworth testified that, "Business records requests usually consist of payroll, bank records, taxes, check stubs, invoices, anything relating to that business." This is a fair summation of a much more detailed listing of records required to be kept pursuant to Rule 69L-6.015, Florida Administrative Code, which was in effect at all times material. In response to the Request for Production, Respondent provided Southern Insight Inc.'s corporate bank statements for the assessed penalty period, detailing corporate income and expenses through deposits and bank/debit card purchases. However, Investigator Beckworth did not deem the corporate bank statements produced by Respondent to be an adequate response, and she did not base her calculations for penalty purposes thereon. Mr. Cauley expected that the Department would, and has argued herein that the Department should, have subtracted from the total deposits to Respondent's corporate account (the minuend) the total corporate business expenses (the subtrahend) in order to determine the Respondent's payroll to Mr. Cauley (the difference), upon which difference the Department should have calculated his workers' compensation penalty. In fact, the Department, through its investigator, did not utilize the total amount deposited to Respondent's corporate account, because some deposits "could" have come from a family member of Mr.Cauley. That said, there are no individual names on the account; the account is clearly in the name of the Respondent corporation; and there is no proof herein that any deposits to Respondent's corporate bank account were derived from anyone other than Mr. Cauley, as Respondent's President. Ms. Beckstrom testified that if the Agency had accepted the total of the deposits to this corporate account for the assessed penalty period as Respondent's payroll, the result would have been more than the total amount actually determined by her to constitute Mr. Cauley's payroll, but that statement was not demonstrated with any specificity. The Department also did not use any of the subtracted amounts shown on the corporate bank statements, even though the bank statements listed the same information as would normally be found on a corporate check, including the transaction number, recipient of the money, the date, and the amount for each bank/debit card transaction. All that might be missing is the self-serving declaration of the check writer on the check stub as to what object or service was purchased from the recipient named on the bank statement. Ms. Beckstrom testified that if Mr. Cauley had provided separate receipts for the transactions recorded on the bank statements as bank/debit card entries, she could have deducted those amounts for business expenses from the corporation's income, to arrive at a lesser payroll for Mr. Cauley. In other words, if Mr. Cauley had provided separate receipts as back-up for the transactions memorialized on the corporate bank statements, the Department might have utilized the bank/debit card transactions itemized on Respondent's corporate bank statements as the amount deducted for Respondent corporation's business expenses, so as to obtain the payroll (difference) paid to Mr. Cauley. It is the amount paid to Mr. Cauley as payroll, upon which the Department must calculate the workers' compensation penalty. The reason Ms. Beckworth gave for not using Respondent's bank statements was that without more, the transactions thereon might not be business expenses of the corporation. However, she also suggested that if, instead of submitting bank/debit card statements, Mr. Cauley had submitted checks payable to third parties and if those corporate checks showed an expenditure for a deductible business expense, like motor vehicle fuel, she might have accepted the same expenditures in check form (rather than the statements) in calculating Respondent's payroll. Ultimately, Ms. Beckworth's only reasons for not accepting the bank statements showing recipients, such as fuel companies like Amoco, was "agency policy," and her speculation that Amoco gas could have been put into a non-company truck or car. She also speculated that a prohibition against using bank statements showing deductions might possibly be found in the basic manual of the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) or in a rule on payrolls (Rule 69L-6.035) which became effective October 10, 2007, after the assessed penalty period. However, the NCCI manual was not offered in evidence; a rule in effect after all times material cannot be utilized here; and no non-rule policy to this effect was proven-up. In addition to not using Respondent's bank statements to calculate a penalty, the Department also did not "impute" the statewide average weekly wage to Respondent for Mr. Cauley. Ms. Beckworth testified that to impute the statewide average weekly wage would have resulted in a higher penalty to Respondent. As to the amount of the statewide average weekly wage, she could only say she thought the statewide average weekly wage was "about $1,000.00". Instead of using Respondent's corporate bank statements or imputing the statewide average weekly wage, Investigator Beckstrom determined that Mass Builders, Inc., was the prime contractor on the jobsite being worked by Respondent, and that Mass Builders, Inc., had not produced proof of securing workers' compensation coverage for Respondent, its sub- contractor. Therefore, she sought, and received, Mass Builders, Inc.'s "payroll records" of amounts paid by the prime contractor, Mass Builders, Inc., to Respondent Southern Insight, Inc., via a separate site-specific stop-work order and business records request directed to Mass Builders, Inc. The only "payroll records" that Mass Builders, Inc., offered in evidence were Mass Builders, Inc.'s check stubs, which Ms. Beckstrom utilized to come up with an income/payroll amount for Respondent Southern Insight, Inc. Mr. Cauley did not know until the hearing that Mass Builders, Inc.'s check stubs had been utilized in this fashion by the Department. However, he ultimately did not dispute the accuracy of the check stubs and did not object to their admission in evidence. In calculating Respondent's total payroll for the assessed penalty period, Investigator Beckstrom considered only the total of the check stubs from Mass Builders, Inc. It is unclear whether or not she reviewed Mass Builders, Inc.'s actual cancelled checks. No one from Mass Builders, Inc., appeared to testify that the stubs represented actual cancelled checks to Respondent or Mr. Cauley. The Department also did not deduct from the total of Mass Builders, Inc.'s check stubs any of the bankcard deductions made by John Cauley from Respondent's corporate bank account, for the same reasons set out above. Mr. Cauley testified, without refutation, that some of the expenses noted on Respondent's bank statements, paid by bank/debit card, most notably expenses for gasoline for his truck, constituted legitimate business expenses of Respondent corporation, which should have been deducted from either the bank statement's total income figure or from the amounts paid by Mass Builders, Inc., to Respondent corporation, before any attempt was made by the Department to calculate the amount paid by Respondent corporation to Mr. Cauley as payroll. Utilizing the SCOPES Manual, which has been adopted by Department rule, Ms. Beckstrom assigned the appropriate class code, 5645, to the type of work (framing) performed by Respondent. In completing the penalty calculation, Ms. Beckstrom multiplied the class code's assigned approved manual rate by the payroll (as she determined it) per one hundred dollars, and then multiplied all by 1.5, arriving at an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment of $27,805.11, served on Respondent on August 22, 2007. Subsequent to the filing of its request for a disputed-fact hearing, in an effort to have the penalty reduced, Respondent provided the Department with additional business records in the form of portions of Southern Insight, Inc.'s 2006 and 2007 U.S. Income Tax Returns for an S Corporation (2006 and 2007 income tax returns). However, neither itemized deductions nor original receipts for Respondent's business expenses were provided to Ms. Beckworth at the same time, and she determined that without itemized deductions, there was no way to calculate Respondent's legitimate business deductions so that they could be deducted from the total of Mass Builders, Inc.'s, check stubs to determine a lesser payroll applicable to Mr. Cauley. Investigator Beckstrom testified that the tax returns, as she received them, did not justify reducing Respondent's payroll used in calculating the penalty. The vague basis for this refusal was to the effect that, "The Internal Revenue Service permits different business deductions than does the Department." Itemization pages (schedules) of Respondent's income tax returns were not provided until the de novo disputed-fact hearing. Confronted with these items at hearing, Ms. Beckworth testified that ordinary business income is not used by the Department to determine payroll, but that automobile and truck expense and legitimate business expenses could be deducted, and that she would probably accept some of the deductions on Respondent's 1020-S returns. Also, if Respondent's bank statement corresponded to the amount on the tax form, she could possibly deduct some items on the bank statements as business expenses before reaching a payroll amount. However, she made no such calculations at hearing. Ms. Beckworth testified that if she had Respondent's checks or "something more" she could possibly deduct the motor fuel amounts. Although Respondent's 2006, and 2007, income tax returns reflected Respondent corporation's income minus several types of business deductions, Ms. Beckstrom testified that the tax deductions were not conclusive of the workers' compensation deductions, because the Internal Revenue Service allows certain deductions not permissible for workers' compensation purposes, but she did not further elaborate upon which tax deductions were, or were not, allowable under any Department rule. She did not "prove up" which deductions were not valid for workers' compensation purposes. Respondent's 2006, tax deductions for "automobile and truck expense" were $2,898.00, and for 2007, were $4,010.00. There was no further itemization by Respondent within these categories for fuel. Other business deductions on the tax returns were also listed in categories, but without any further itemization. The only supporting documentation for the tax returns admitted in evidence was Respondent's bank statements. Respondent believed that the tax returns and possibly other documentation had been submitted before hearing by his accountant. It had not been submitted. The Department never credibly explained why it considered a third party's check stubs (not even the third party's cancelled checks) more reliable than Respondent's bank statements or federal tax returns. Even so, at hearing, the Department declined to utilize the business deductions itemized on Respondent's tax forms or any bank/debit card deductions on its bank statements so as to diminish the amount arrived-at via the Mass Builders, Inc.'s check stubs, and ultimately to arrive at a difference which would show a lesser payroll to Mr. Cauley. Although Mr. Cauley's questions to Ms. Beckstrom suggested that he would like at least all of the fuel company deductions on his bank statements to be considered as business deductions of Respondent Southern Insight, Inc., and for those fuel company expenditures to be subtracted from either the total deposits to the corporate bank account or deducted from the payroll total as calculated by Ms. Beckstrom from Mass Builders, Inc.'s check stub total, he did not testify with clarity as to which particular debits/charges on the bank statements fell in this category. Nor did he relate, with any accuracy, the debits/charges on the bank statements to the corporate tax returns. Upon review by the undersigned of Respondent's bank statements admitted in evidence, it is found that the bulk of Respondent's bank/debit card deductions during the assessed penalty period were cash withdrawals or ATM debits which cannot be identified as being paid to fuel companies or purveyors of construction material. As Investigator Beckstrom legitimately observed, "Big Al's Bait" is not a likely source of motor fuel. "Publix" and "Outback Steak House" are likewise unlikely sources of fuel or construction material, and cannot stand alone, without some other receipt to support them, as a legitimate corporate business entertainment expense. Other debits/charges on the bank statements are similarly non-complying, ambiguous, or defy categorization. However, the undersigned has been able to isolate on the corporate bank statements purchases from the known fuel distributors "Amoco" and "Chevron" on the following dates: 7/09/07, 7/10/07, 6/04/07, 6/04/07, 6/11/07, 5/03/07/ 4/09/07, 4/10/07, 4/13/07, 4/16/07, 3/02/07, 3/05/07, 3/13/07, 3/15/07, 3/20/07, 1/29/07, 5/01/06, 6/02/06, 8/02/06, 11/03/06, totaling $556.98.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, that affirms the stop-work order and concludes that a penalty is owed; that provides for a recalculation of penalty to be completed, on the basis set out herein, within 30 days of the final order; and that guarantees the Respondent Southern Insight, Inc., a window of opportunity to request a Section 120.57 (1) disputed-fact hearing solely upon the recalculation. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony B. Miller, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 John Cauley, President Southern Insight, Inc. Post Office Box 2592 Bunnell, Florida 32110 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Respondents violated the statutes and rules alleged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing chapter 560, Florida Statutes, including part II related to money services businesses. At all times material hereto, Payservices has been a foreign corporation and part II licensee pursuant to chapter 560, specifically a "money services business," as defined in section 560.102(22), and "money transmitter," as defined in section 560.102(23).4/ At all times material hereto, Mr. Danenberg has been the chief executive officer, compliance officer, and an owner of Payservices. As such, Mr. Danenberg is an "affiliated party" and a "responsible person" as defined in sections 560.103(1) and 560.103(33). Count I Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to annually file a financial audit report within 120 days after the end of the licensee's fiscal year. The financial audit report is prepared by a certified public accountant and is used to demonstrate to OFR that the licensee has the financial health to conduct its business and transmit funds within the State of Florida. Payservices' fiscal year ends December 31st. Respondents were required to provide Payservices' 2016 financial audit report to OFR by no later than May 1, 2017. On December 20, 2017, William C. Morin, Jr., OFR's Chief of the Bureau of Registration, contacted Payservices by email with regard to Payservices' failure to timely file a financial audit report within 120 days after the 2016 fiscal year ended. Mr. Danenberg responded by email that same day, telling Mr. Morin that Payservices' accountant had prepared a financial audit report "many months ago," and that it was his "impression" that it had been uploaded to the REAL system "at some point when we filed the quarterly reports." Mr. Danenberg attached to his December 20, 2017, email what OFR accepted as the financial audit report that same day. Notably, the document indicated it was prepared by a certified public accountant on June 15, 2017, after the May 1, 2017, deadline. In any event, Mr. Morin reviewed the REAL system regarding Payservices and determined there were no problems with the REAL system's ability to accept uploaded documents. Mr. Morin testified that he could see on the REAL system that Payservices successfully uploaded a quarterly report and Security Device Calculation Form on January 26, 2017, which created a transaction number. Mr. Morin also observed that Payservices started to upload its financial audit report, which would create a transaction number, but no financial audit report was actually attached and uploaded to the REAL system on January 26, 2017, under that transaction number. According to Mr. Morin, Payservices may have attempted to start to file a financial audit report on January 26, 2017, but it did not complete the transaction because no financial audit report was attached. At hearing, Mr. Morin acknowledged that: "When I looked at the Financial Audit Report transaction, nothing was attached. And I also know that the functionality of the REAL system will kind of allow for the transaction to be completed and nothing attached." Tr. p. 100. Mr. Morin testified that Mr. Danenberg was cooperative when he was contacted on Decemeber 20, 2017, and submitted the financial audit report. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not submit their financial audit report to OFR until December 20, 2017, almost eight months after the May 1, 2017, deadline. Count II Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to annually file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, by January 31st of each calendar year for the preceding calendar year. The Security Device Calculation Form requires licensees to report to OFR the dollar amount of transactions with Florida consumers. The dollar amount of transactions identified in the form is then utilized by OFR to determine if additional collateral is necessary to protect Florida consumers in the event a claim is made against the collateral for monies that were not properly transmitted by the licensee. Andrew Grosmaire, OFR's Chief of Enforcement in the Division of Consumer Finance, acknowledged at hearing that a licensee has 60 days to amend the face value of its surety bond, should an increase be required, and that at all times material hereto, the value of Payservices' surety bond has been correct for the minimum amount required. Nevertheless, Mr. Morin testified that Respondents did not file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not file Form OFR-560-07, Security Device Calculation Form, until February 10, 2018, ten days late. Count III Licensees, such as Payservices, are required to update information contained in an initial application form, or any amendment to such application, within 30 days after the change is effective. In Payservices' initial application dated September 25, 2015, Respondents identified Corporate Access, Inc., as its registered agent with an address for service of process at 236 East 6th Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32303. According to the Department of State, Division of Corporation's records, on January 10, 2017, Mr. Danenberg was appointed as Payservices' registered agent with a new address for service of process at 300 West Palmetto Park Road, A210, Boca Raton, Florida 33432. Respondents filed an amended license application with OFR on August 28, 2017, which still listed Corporate Access, Inc., as the registered agent for service of process. On February 26, 2018, Respondents amended their registered agent information with the Department of State listing a new address for Mr. Danenberg at 14061 Pacific Pointe Place, No. 204, Delray Beach, Florida 33484. Mr. Morin testified that at no time have Respondents updated their initial application with OFR to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his address as the registered agent.5/ Mr. Morin and Mr. Grosmaire testified that the reason a licensee needs to update a change in the registered agent's name and address is so that OFR may effectuate service of process against the licensee. Yet, Mr. Grosmaire acknowledged that OFR has access to the Division of Corporation's records. Nevertheless, the persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondents did not update their initial application with OFR to reflect Mr. Danenberg as the registered agent for Payservices and his address as the registered agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that OFR impose an administrative fine against Respondents in the amount of $6,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2019.
The Issue Whether the petitioner should revoke respondent's self-insurance privilege for failure to comply with Rule 38F-5.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On February 12, 1980, the Department of Labor and Employment Security, through its Bureau of Self-Insurance, notified the Deauville Hotel (respondent) of its intention to revoke respondent's workers' compensation self-insurance privilege for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 38F-5.10(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code. This Rule requires each se1f-insurer to have on file with the Department a "financial statement of a current date showing a net worth of not less than $250,000 and a current ratio of more than 1 to 1, and a working capital of an amount establishing financial strength and liquidity of the business to pay normal compensation claims promptly". Specifically, petitioner contends the respondent filed financial statements for calendar year 1978 that were not certified by an outside independent accounting firm, and that such statements reflected an unsatisfactory current ratio and net worth in contravention of the Rule. Respondent is a large luxury hotel located in Miami Beach, Florida, and employs more than 400 persons. It is a division of Deauville Operating Corporation. Respondent is now and has been for a number of years a self- insurer under Section 440.38(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The privilege to self- insure is granted by the Department when an employer demonstrates the financial ability to promptly discharge all amounts required to be paid under the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law as contained in Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Having once established the requisite financial integrity, an employer must file within six months following the close of each succeeding fiscal year financial statements demonstrating the continued ability to discharge all obligations under the Law. The Department is reposed with the responsibility of reviewing the financial statements to insure compliance with the applicable rules governing self-insurers. When the administrative complaint was issued, respondent had on file financial statements consisting of a balance sheet, statement of income, home office equity, and changes in financial position (Exhibit No. 1). All statements were prepared using the year ending December 31, 1978. Three financial measurements are used by the Department to evaluate the financial integrity of an employer. These are current ratio, net worth and working capital. However, the Department has chosen to rely only upon the first two measurements as a basis for revoking the self-insurance privilege of respondent. The current ratio of a business entity is determined by comparing the ratio of current assets to current liabilities as shown in the most recent financial statement (Rule 38F-5.01 (10), Florida Administrative Code). The owner's equity or net worth is computed by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. Working capital is derived by taking the excess of current assets over current liabilities. (Rule 38F-5.01(16), Florida Administrative Code);. The application of these measurements to the 1978 financial statements of respondent reveals a current ratio of .82 to 1 based upon current assets and liabilities of $667,542 and $816,542, respectively, a negative net worth of $543,112, and a working capital in a negative position. Efforts by petitioner in late 1979 and early 1980 to obtain more current financial statements of respondent were not successful. However, in April and July, 1980, respondent filed certain financial data for calendar year 1979 and the year ending March 31, 1980 (Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7). Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 pertain to the financial position of the Deauville Operating Corporation at December 31, 1979, and incorporate therein the operating results of the Deauville Hotel. Exhibit No. 2 failed to segregate the Corporation's current assets and liabilities from total assets and liabilities. Therefore, no determination of current ratio or working capital can be made. The Exhibit does show the Corporation had a net worth of $2,643,487. Exhibit No. 3 revised the data shown in Exhibit No. 2 and provided a division of assets and liabilities from which a measurement of current ratio and working capital can be calculated. However, the Corporation improperly classified as a current asset a long-term receivable in the amount of $2 million. Had this asset been properly classified, current liabilities would have exceeded current assets and produced a negative working capital and current ratio of less than 1 to 1. Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 are financial statements of the Deauville Hotel for calendar year 1979 and the year ending March 31, 1980, respectively. Exhibit No. 6 shows total current assets and liabilities of $495,449 and $1,072,540, respectively, as of December 31, 1979. The resulting current ratio is .46 to 1 while the working capital is in a negative position. Net worth is a negative $394,639. As of March 31, 1980, current assets had increased to $832,763 while current liabilities had slightly decreased to $1,017,636. The current ratio is accordingly less than 1 to 1. At the same time, net worth had increased to a positive amount of $137,901 while working capital remained in a negative position by virtue of current liabilities exceeding current assets (Exhibit No. 7). None of the financial statements are certified by outside independent accounting firms. The audit reports for the set of statements contained in Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 6 and 7 specifically contain a disclaimer by the accountants that they have "not audited or reviewed the accompanying financial statements, and accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other form of assurance on them". By the same token, the statements encompassed in Exhibit No. 3 include the conspicuous disclaimer by the accountant that such statements are "unaudited".
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that petitioner Department revoke the privilege of respondent to be a self-insurer under Section 440.38(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas P. Chanco, Esquire Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2652 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Wade Hampton, Esquire Post Office Box 355 Gainesville, Florida 32602
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for self-insurance for workers' compensation should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of the witnesses' testimony and the documentary evidence received into evidence, the following relevant and material facts that follow are determined. The Florida Self-Insurers Guaranty Association, Inc. (Association), is established by Section 440.385, Florida Statutes (2003), and is an organization that provides a guarantee for workers' compensation benefits for companies that are self-insured. The Association pays injured workers their benefits, if the self-insurer becomes insolvent. An insolvency fund is established and managed by the Association, which funds the workers' compensation benefits for insolvent members. The insolvency fund is funded by assessments from members of the Association. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-5.102 (formerly Florida Administrative Code Rule 4L-5.102), in order for an employer to qualify for self-insurance under the relevant provisions of law, the applicant must meet the following requirements: (1) have and maintain a minimum net worth of $1,000,000; (2) have at least three years of financial statements or summaries; (3) if the name of the business has changed in the last three years, provide a copy of the Amended Articles of Incorporation; and (4) have the financial strength to ensure the payment of current and estimated future compensation claims when due, as determined through review of their financial statement or summary by the Department. Of the general requirements noted in paragraph 3, above, the only issue in this proceeding regards N.C.M.'s financial strength. An applicant for self-insurance is required to submit in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent years. All financial statements, audits, and other financial information must be prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The Association is required to review each application and the financial documents which are submitted as part of that application to determine if the applicant has the financial strength to ensure the timely payment of all current and future workers' compensation claims. After the Association reviews the application, it makes a recommendation to the Department as to whether the application for self-insurance should be approved or denied. The Department is required by law to accept the Association's recommendations unless it finds that the recommendations are clearly and convincingly erroneous. N.C.M. submitted its application for self-insurance on or about May 6, 2003, and included in its application audited financial statements for its three most recent fiscal years. The statement contained an unqualified opinion from N.C.M.'s accountant. N.C.M. provided information in its application regarding the number of employees, the worker classifications of these employees, and a payroll classification rating that has been established by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. The application made it clear that the Department could use this information to calculate a manual annual rate premium for each worker classification to determine an overall workers' compensation premium based on statewide manual rates. The Association calculated a standard premium of $507,088.75 for N.C.M., after giving credit for its experience modification of .71. N.C.M. confirmed in its application that it was a corporation duly organized and existing in the State of Florida. N.C.M. also supplied information on its corporate officers and copies of its Articles of Incorporation confirming its corporate existence. In its application and at the hearing, N.C.M. agreed that, if accepted for membership, it will maintain security deposits and excess insurance as required by the Department's administrative rules. Upon receipt of N.C.M.'s application, the Association thoroughly reviewed the application and financial statements for the three most recent years. The Association examined the balance sheets to analyze the Company's assets, liabilities, working capital, and equity structure. Additionally, the Association examined N.C.M.'s income statements to analyze the Company's revenues, profits and/or losses, and expenses. The Company's cash flows were examined. The Association calculated various financial ratios for N.C.M. in order to examine, among other things, the company's asset structure, liquidity, total debt to equity structure, and net income or loss as it relates to the company's equity. The analysis and review performed by the Association, as described in paragraph 12, is the same type of analysis the Association performs on every applicant for self-insurance. Because applicants for self-insurance come from various types of industries, it is not useful to establish specific threshold values for various financial ratios in determining financial strength. However, the Association reviews and analyzes the financial statements of each applicant to determine the financial condition of that applicant. The Association's review of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements revealed that the Company had a net loss of $60,937 in the year ending December 31, 2002. The Company also had a loss from operations in its most recent year in the amount of $74,897, or negative .62 of its revenues. This was a significant factor to the Association because it revealed N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for its most recent year. Petitioner's tax return of 2002 showed a profit for the Company. However, the tax returns are not meant to reflect the economic profit of a business and are not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Rather, the audited financial statements provide more accurate information about the Company’s financial health. N.C.M.'s 2002 net worth was $1,218,895, which exceeded the $1,000,000 minimum net worth requirement established in the applicable rule cited in paragraph 3 above. However, the Association was concerned about N.C.M.'s net worth when taken as a percentage of its workers' compensation premiums, calculated by using the payroll classification information in N.C.M.'s application. The analysis of N.C.M.'s net worth as a percentage of workers' compensation premiums is important because workers' compensation claims can accrue each year and be paid out over a long period of time by the self-insurer. A company with equity that is relatively low in comparison to its workers' compensation exposure might, over time, owe its injured workers as much as, or more than, the equity in the company. This would increase the risk for the injured worker. Upon completing its financial analysis, the Association recommended that N.C.M.'s application for self- insurance be denied. Brian Gee, the executive director of the Association, conveyed the recommendation of denial to the Department in two letters, one dated May 12, 2003, and the other one dated June 19, 2003. The letters were virtually identical, except that the June 19, 2003, letter referred to the specific statute at issue and statutory language that N.C.M. did not have the financial strength necessary to ensure timely payment of all current and future claims. Attached to both the May 12, 2003, and June 19, 2003, letters was a copy of the Association's summary of N.C.M.'s audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000. Based on the review of the financial data, the Association made the following four findings, which it listed in both letters: The Company received unqualified audit opinions on its December 31, 2002, 2001, and 2000 financial statements from Rust & Christopher, P.A. Liquidity - The current ratio has decreased from 1.34 at December 31, 2000 to 1.13 at December 31, 2002. Capital Structure - The total liabilities to book equity ratio has increased since December 31, 2000 from 1.39 to 1.99 at December 31, 2002. Results of Operations - The Company's gross profit margin has negative 0.62 for the year ended December 31, 2002. The Company reported a net loss of $60,937 for the year ended December 31, 2002. Although the above-referenced letters listed findings relative to the Company's liquidity and capital structure, Mr. Gee did not believe that those findings were of "major significance." The Association's letters and accompanying financial data were submitted to the Department for a final decision to be made by the Department. The Department received and reviewed the Association's letters of recommendation and the accompanying documentation. Based on its review of the letter, the Department noted that the Association appeared to have concerns about the Company's liquidity, liabilities, and profitability. However, there was nothing in the letters which indicated that the Association did not consider the findings related to the Company's liquidity and liabilities (capital structure) to be of major significance. The Department sent N.C.M.'s application, which included the financial statements, to an outside CPA firm for review. The outside CPA performed a financial analysis, calculated various financial ratios on N.C.M., and provided a report to the Department. The outside CPA correctly noted in her report that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin for the year ended December 31, 2002, was 15.4 percent. In Finding No. 4 of its letters of recommendation to the Department, the Association had mistakenly mislabeled the Company's net profit margin as the gross profit margin. As a result of that mislabeling in the letters, the finding incorrectly stated that N.C.M.'s gross profit margin was a negative 0.62 percent for the year ending December 31, 2002. In fact, it was the Company's net profit margin for the year ending December 31, 2001, that was negative 0.62 percent. Notwithstanding the incorrect mislabeling of this item in the letters, the financial summary attached to the letters accurately reflected the Company's gross profits and revenue. The financial statement of N.C.M. also reflected that for the year ending 2002, the Company had a gross profit of $1,877,076, and for that same period had a loss from operations of $74,897, or negative .62 percent. The outside CPA also compared various financial information on N.C.M. to an industry average and concluded that "some of the Company's ratios are below the industry ratios." In making these comparisons, the outside CPA researched two companies she believed were in a business similar to N.C.M. The research on these companies provided an industry average for various financial information on companies in the same industry as the two reference companies. In this case, the two reference companies were primarily producers or sellers of concrete products, as opposed to construction companies like N.C.M. Accordingly, the industry ratios contained in the outside CPA's report may be different than the construction industry and not an appropriate basis with which to compare N.C.M. The report of the outside CPA stated that N.C.M. pays approximately $1,000,000 a year in workers' compensation insurance. That figure is higher than the premiums calculated by the Association using statewide manual rates. Instead of using those rates, the outside CPA based her figure on a newspaper article, which stated that Mr. DelDuca, president of N.C.M., pays $1,000,000 for workers' compensation insurance. In her report, the outside CPA cited N.C.M.'s lack of profitability for the year ending 2002 and correctly noted that for that year, the Company reported a net loss of $60,937. The outside CPA notified the Department that she concurred with the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application to become self-insured because the Company had not demonstrated it has the financial strength to ensure timely payment of workers' compensation claims. The Department reviewed the outside CPA's report and noted the concerns about the company's debt equity and lack of profitability. Based on the outside CPA's report, the Department correctly determined that the report contained no information that the Association's recommendation was clearly and convincingly erroneous. As a result of its determination that the Association's recommendation to deny N.C.M.'s application for self-insurance was not clearly or convincingly erroneous, the Department denied the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying N.C.M. of Collier County, Inc.'s application for self-insurance. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: John M. Alford, Esquire 542 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Mark B. Cohn, Esquire McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., L.P.A. 1800 Midland Building 101 West Prospect Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1088 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated February 5, 1999, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. The Respondent maintains that the instant action is barred by laches and violates Section 455.225, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of certified public accountants licensed within the state. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent, Robert Jarkow, has been licensed in Florida as a certified public accountant, license number AC0010963. On or about December 1996, the Respondent orally agreed to provide accounting services for an individual named Kasman who was doing business as Traditions Workshop, Inc. (Traditions). Traditions manufactured uniforms and listed the federal government among its clients. Revenues to the company from the sale of uniforms were presumably posted in accordance with written contracts. Although the Respondent participated in the monthly completion of financial records for the company, the exact description of his responsibilities for the company and the individual are not known. It is undisputed that Ms. Kasman asked the Respondent to provide a financial statement for the company as part of an effort to secure a line of credit from a bank in New York. It is also undisputed that Ms. Kasman refused to pay for the statement. According to the Respondent, based upon that refusal, he declined to prepare the instrument. Nevertheless, a document entitled "Financial Statements" was generated with a notation "MANAGEMENT USE ONLY-NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION." The Respondent maintains that the document was not prepared as a financial report and that if generated using his data disk it was done without any intention on his part for the product being used to secure a line of credit. The document did not comply with provisions of accounting practice. The Respondent admitted that when his relationship with the party deteriorated, and payment for services was not rendered, he did not release information to a succeeding accountant. Ms. Kasman needed the information, depreciation schedules, in order to accurately complete tax records for Traditions. The Respondent attempted to locate Ms. Kasman and her bookkeeper for hearing but was unable to do so. Ms. Kasman filed a complaint with the Petitioner against the Respondent that was not investigated until several months after it was filed. The Respondent obtained a civil judgment against Traditions for unpaid accounting fees. The Administrative Complaint filed in this case was submitted over a year after the consumer complaint. Neither party presented testimony from the complainant, her bookkeeper, or her succeeding accountant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding the Respondent violated Rule 61H1-23.002, Florida Administrative Code, as set forth in Count II of the Administrative Code; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1000; and placing the Respondent on probation for one year subject to terms as may be specified by the Board of Accountancy. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 4th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Victor K. Rones, Esquire Law Offices of Rones & Navarro 16105 Northeast 18th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Martha Willis, Division Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
