Read the following Case Study:"Back to the future" (or how a product last sold almost 60 years ago resulted in a current financial statement restatement.(Links to an external site.) Answer the...

Read the following Case Study:"Back to the future" (or how a product last sold almost 60 years ago resulted in a current financial statement restatement.(Links to an external site.)

Answer the following questions:

In preparing your answers for questions 1 to 4, you will need to refer to OI's amended 10-K for 2015, which can be found by clickinghere(Links to an external site.).

• What journal entry would OI have made to record the additional $295 million of asbestos liability?


• Briefly summarize the effect of the restatement on the following financial statements.
  
  
  • The income statement.
  
  
  • The balance sheet.
  
  
  • The statement of cash flows.
  
  
  • The statement of share owners' equity.
  
  
  
  

What accounts were affected? By how much? What other disclosures were impacted? Note 1 in the restated 2015 10-K describes the changes.

• Explain why OI's treatment resulted in an increase to the earnings for 2015, 2014, and 2013.


• Based on OI's disclosures in the 10-K prior to restatement, was it clear that the firm was using a three-year period to estimate asbestos litigation? Be sure to explain your response.


• The discussion between the SEC and OI was extensive and interesting. Appendix A shows all of the correspondence between the two and includes web links to the letters. The following questions are based on those letters and the information in the case.


• Briefly summarize OI's justification of its treatment of the unasserted asbestos liability. What are the pros and cons of OI's original treatment of the asbestos liability?


• Briefly summarize the SEC's position regarding the treatment of the unasserted asbestos liability. What are the pros and cons of the SEC's approach?
  
  
  • Which approach do you find preferable and why? You can choose either OI or the SEC, but your analysis needs to be based on something other than the fact that the SEC prevailed or OI did not.
  
  
  
  

• How is OI's experience with asbestos litigation similar to Garlock's? How is it different?


• Approaching this issue as a member of OI's executive management group, describe how your approach to asbestos litigation would be similar to or different from OI's.