Arguments made in a lawsuit by auditing firm Deloitte & Touche have been criticised as being "fundamentally defective, legally inadequate, and factually unmeritorious" by an oil trading company, Dram Oil and Trading Limited.
Dram Oil is suing the auditing company for more than 187,595,000 in damages. The oil business claims that Deloitte's negligence qualifies it for such compensation. According to court documents obtained by JoyNews, the business dispute between Dram Oil and Cal Bank that gave birth to the case happened sometime in 2013.
Dram Oil won the case in court and was given a favourable ruling. In addition, the court issued consequential orders calling for the hiring of an audit company to "audit the books, records, and inventory of the 7th Defendant relating to the subject-matter suit, particularly with respect to payments, receivables, and emergency cargo under recoveries received by 7th Defendant under the Tripartite Agreement."
According to reports, Deloitte and Touche was given the assignment to carry out this audit in May 2018 after the first auditing company failed to do so.
Deloitte & Touche claim to have had access to court-related documents that are thought to have established the crucial facts pertaining to the dispute.
However, Dram Oil claims that the audit firm's study proved it had relied on "irrelevant, deceptive, and egregiously faulty" information. Given that the defendant had no reason to assume they were accurate or dependable, it was said that the defendant "knew or ought to have known were not true or reliable, all of which were unlawful and constitute professional negligence."
According to Dram Oil, the decision to file a lawsuit was made because the audit company came to conclusions and findings that were at odds with the evidence the court had found to be on its side.
In contrast, Deloitte contends in documents submitted that no facts found in a court decision supported its selection as an auditing firm. Dram Oil, on the other hand, disagrees and requests that the court reject the audit firm's argument.