This blog has moved to:



AccountingOnion.com

« IFRS Chaos in France: The Incredible Case of Société Générale | Main | Bear Stearns: SEC Can't Serve Brokerage Clients and Shareholders Simultaneously »

March 13, 2008

Comments

Independent Accountant

I've been wondering about this too.

Dan Moore

I think settlement accounting is correct in this case, and for the SEC to require a negative plan amendment would be an error.

I think your emphasis on the word significant is misplaced; it doesn't matter whether the remaining liability is significant, but rather the reduction in risk & assets. The problem is that settlement accounting has been nixed in cases where the employer is left with a residual risk or opportunity in connection with the liabilities & assets.

The comments to this entry are closed.

This blog has moved to:



AccountingOnion.com