IFRScommunity.com

yes the reason is that you're getting pretty complicated if a sub contributes to another because it doesn't have an equity interest.. ultimately, why would these standalone entities do this transaction? It's only because the common control has told them to (that's why the parent's involvement is re...

Thanks all for the input.

So sub1 transfers the intangble asset directly to sub2, not via the holdco/parent. not sure if this makes any difference? So no distribution to holdco?

Thanks, appreciate your feedback. So it's aligned with what we said earlier right ? So what you'll do ? Yep, aligned to what we said earlier. Well, you should be able to see from my next post what the plan is :D Move the assets to a new legal entity (yes, some admin with setting up and licensing) a...

JRSB wrote: ↑23 Jun 2022, 18:03 not sure it's right to impair given it's not a market transaction

Perhaps there's a deemed distribution to parent, and contribution to sub ?

Thanks. So sub1 will do a deemed distribution to parent (holdco), who in turn contributes to sub2? Not sure how I would justify a deemed distribution?

Feedback on this. IFRS only allows the combination of 2 transactions leading to the loss of control if any one of the two transactions in isolation would not make the transactions viable. In such a case the transactions can be offset to account for the loss in control. However, in our example, we wi...

Hi all, Question relates to transaction between 2 entities within the same Group. Sub1 is in possession of a contract that gives rise to an intangible asset of $10m, accounted for at cost with an indefinite useful life. For Group restructuring purposes, the contract is being transferred to Sub2 afte...

Thanks Leo. Appreciate the input.

Thanks Leo. Yep, we will try to argue consolidation of the cell under Bermudan law (where the cell and company is based) where there are case law supporting completed ring-fencing/fire-walling/silo-ing of cells. But it is a long shot. But before we go on a legal and accounting opinion route to argue...

Yes, you are correct on IFRS 10. In most cases the key issue is the cell's asset and liabilities are ring fenced from the other cells, but not from the insurer itself. So if the insurer goes insolvent, creditors have access to the individual cell assets and therefore they are not deemed separate sil...

Company A owns a protected cell company ("PCC") (Cell Captive insurer), Company B with NAV of $20m. It intends to sell Company B, to Company C for $1, but Company A will move all of the material assets of Company B into a separate cell within Company B, which Company A will own subsequent ...