document_title: The Revenant (2015 film)

question_text: where did the movie the revenant take place

text: The Revenant (2015 film)

text: Plot[edit]

text: In 1823, Hugh Glass guides Andrew Henry’s trappers through unorganized territory. While he and his half-Pawnee son, Hawk, are hunting, the company's camp is attacked by an Arikara war party. Guided by Glass, the survivors travel on foot to Fort Kiowa, as traveling downriver will make them vulnerable. After docking, the crew stashes the pelts near the shore.

tag: p

text: Glass is badly mauled by a grizzly bear and left close to death. Trapper John Fitzgerald, fearful of another Arikara attack, argues that the group must mercy-kill Glass and keep moving. Henry agrees, but is unable to pull the trigger; instead, he offers money for someone to stay with Glass. When the only volunteers are Hawk and the young Jim Bridger, Fitzgerald agrees to stay for money, to recoup his losses from the abandoned pelts.

text: After the others leave, Fitzgerald attempts to smother Glass but is discovered by Hawk. Fitzgerald stabs him to death as Glass watches helplessly. The next morning, Fitzgerald convinces Bridger that the Arikara are approaching and they must abandon Glass. After they depart, Fitzgerald admits he lied. When Fitzgerald and Bridger meet Henry at the fort, Fitzgerald tells him that Glass died and Hawk vanished.

text: Glass begins an arduous journey through the wilderness. He performs crude self-surgery and eludes the pursuing Arikara who are looking for the Chief's kidnapped daughter, Powaqa. Glass encounters Pawnee refugee Hikuc, who says that "revenge is in the Creator's hands." The men share bison meat and travel together. After a hallucinogenic experience, Glass discovers Hikuc hanged by French hunters. He infiltrates their camp and sees the leader raping Powaqa. He frees her, kills two hunters, and steals Hikuc's horse, leaving his canteen behind. The next morning, Glass is ambushed by the Arikara and driven over a cliff on his horse. He survives the stormy night by eviscerating the horse and sheltering inside its carcass.

text: A French survivor staggers into Fort Kiowa and Bridger recognizes his canteen as Glass's. Believing it stolen, Henry organizes a search party. Fitzgerald, realizing Glass is alive, empties the outpost’s safe and flees. The search party finds the exhausted Glass. Enraged, Henry orders Bridger arrested, but Glass vouches that Bridger was deceived and reveals that Fitzgerald murdered Hawk. Glass and Henry set out in pursuit of Fitzgerald.

text: After the two split up, Fitzgerald ambushes and kills Henry. Glass uses Henry's corpse on his horse as a decoy and shoots Fitzgerald in the arm. He pursues Fitzgerald to a riverbank where they engage in a brutal fight. Glass is about to kill Fitzgerald, but spots a band of Arikara downstream. He remembers Hikuc's words and pushes Fitzgerald downstream into the hands of the Arikara. The chief kills and scalps Fitzgerald and the Arikara spare Glass. Heavily wounded, Glass retreats into the mountains where he is visited by the spirit of his wife.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Leonardo DiCaprio as Hugh Glass
Tom Hardy as John Fitzgerald[9]
Domhnall Gleeson as Andrew Henry[10]
Will Poulter as Jim Bridger[9]
Forrest Goodluck as Hawk
Paul Anderson as Anderson
Kristoffer Joner as Murphy
Joshua Burge as Stubby Bill
Duane Howard as Elk Dog
Melaw Nakehk'o as Powaqa
Fabrice Adde as Toussaint
Arthur Redcloud as Hikuc
Lukas Haas as Jones[11]
Brendan Fletcher as Fryman
Tyson Wood as Weston
Grace Dove as Hugh Glass's wife
Isaiah Tootoosis as Boy Hawk

tag: ul

text: Production[edit]

text: Development and financing[edit]

text: Development of The Revenant began in August 2001, with producer Akiva Goldsman acquiring the rights to Michael Punke's then-unpublished manuscript.[12] David Rabe had written the film's script.[13] The production was picked up by Park Chan-wook, with Samuel L. Jackson in mind to star. Park later left the project.[14][15] The development stalled until 2010, when Mark L. Smith wrote a new adaptation of the novel for Steve Golin's Anonymous Content. In May 2010, Smith revealed that John Hillcoat was attached to direct the film and that Christian Bale was in negotiation to star the movie.[16] Hillcoat left the project in October 2010.[15] Jean-François Richet was considered to replace him, but Alejandro G. Iñárritu signed on to direct in August 2011.[15][17] Goldsman was also confirmed to be producing with Weed Road Pictures.[17] In November, New Regency Productions joined to produce with Anonymous Content, and 20th Century Fox was confirmed to be distributing the film.[18][19] Days later, Iñárritu stated that he was seeking Leonardo DiCaprio and Sean Penn for the two lead roles.[20]

text: Once Iñárritu agreed to direct, he began working with Smith on script rewrites. In an interview with Creative Screenwriting, Smith admitted during this process he was unsure if Iñárritu would even be able to film some of the sequences they wrote. He recalled, "He would have some ideas and I would say, 'Alejandro, we can’t pull this off. It’s not going to work,' and he would say, 'Mark, trust me, we can do this.' In the end, he was right."[21]

text: The film was put on hold in March 2012, as New Regency hired Iñárritu to direct an adaptation of Flim-Flam Man, Jennifer Vogel's non-fiction book about her criminal father.[22] Penn was also under consideration for the lead role in that film.[23] In December 2012, Iñárritu announced that his next film would be Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), a comedy-drama about an actor who once played a famous superhero. For his work, Iñárritu won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, and the film won Best Picture. Filming took place in March 2013.[24] Iñárritu was scheduled to begin production on The Revenant after Birdman wrapped.[25]

text: The film was granted a production budget of $60 million, with $30 million funded by New Regency. Brett Ratner's RatPac-Dune Entertainment, a joint venture between Ratner's RatPac Entertainment and 20th Century Fox's former financing partner, Dune Entertainment, also funded the film.[18] Worldview Entertainment, who also co-financed Birdman, was originally set to fund the film but backed out in July 2014 due to the departure of its CEO, Christopher Woodrow.[18][25][26] New Regency approached 20th Century Fox for additional funding, but the company declined, citing the pay-or-play contracts made for both DiCaprio and Tom Hardy, which would require that the actors be paid regardless of whether the film is completed.[26] Annapurna Pictures' Megan Ellison entered negotiations to finance the film shortly after.[18][26] The Chinese company Guangdong Alpha Animation and Culture Company partially financed the film.[27]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography for The Revenant began in October 2014.[28] A planned two-week break from filming in December was extended to six weeks which forced Tom Hardy to drop out of Suicide Squad. In February 2015, Iñárritu, who shot the film using natural lighting, stated that production would last "until the end of April or May", as the crew is "shooting in such remote far-away locations that, by the time we arrive and have to return, we have already spent 40% of the day".[29][30][31] Brad Weston, president and CEO of New Regency Pictures, stated that principal photography had been challenging due to the ambitious nature of the film. Ultimately, principal photography wrapped in August 2015.[32]

text: The film was shot in twelve locations in three countries: Canada, the United States, and Argentina.[33] In Canada, filming took place in Calgary and Fortress Mountain in Alberta, in Kananaskis Country west of Calgary, the Badlands near Drumheller, and at Squamish and Mammoth Studios, Burnaby, in British Columbia.[33] The scenes in the waterfall were filmed at the Kootenai Falls near Libby, Montana. While the initial plan was to film entirely in Canada, the weather was ultimately too warm, leading the filmmakers to locations near the Rio Olivia at the tip of Argentina with snow on the ground, to shoot the film's ending.[28][34]

text: Crew members often complained about difficult shoots, with many quitting or being fired. Mary Parent was then brought in as a producer.[28] Iñárritu stated that some of the crew members had left the film, explaining that "as a director, if I identify a violin that is out of tune, I have to take that from the orchestra." On his experience filming, DiCaprio stated: "I can name 30 or 40 sequences that were some of the most difficult things I’ve ever had to do. Whether it’s going in and out of frozen rivers, or sleeping in animal carcasses, or what I ate on set. [I was] enduring freezing cold and possible hypothermia constantly."[35][36]

text: Iñárritu had stated that he originally wanted to shoot the film chronologically, a process that would have added $7 million to the film's production budget.[37] Iñárritu later confirmed that the film was shot in sequence, despite Hardy's statement that the film could not be shot chronologically, due to weather conditions.[38][39]

text: In July 2015, it was reported that the film's budget had ballooned from the original $60 million to $95 million, and by the time production wrapped it had reached $135 million.[3]

text: Visual effects[edit]

text: The visual effects for The Revenant were produced primarily by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM). Other companies, such as Moving Picture Company (MPC) and Cinesite, also created visual effects for the film.[40]

text: Music[edit]

text: The musical score for The Revenant was composed by Japanese musician Ryuichi Sakamoto who had previously scored the Square Enix's Dawn of Mana, The Last Emperor (directed by Bernardo Bertolucci), Poppoya (directed by Yasuo Furuhata), Tony Takitani (directed by Jun Ichikawa the director of the Mitsui ReHouse commercial from 1997 to 1999 starring Chizuru Ikewaki and Mao Inoue), and German electronic musician Alva Noto with additional music composed by Bryce Dessner.[41] The main body of the score was recorded at the Seattlemusic Scoring Stage in the Bastyr Chapel in greater Seattle, Washington by musicians of the Northwest Sinfonia. Sakamoto conducted these sessions. Bryce Dessner's portion of the score was performed by the 25-piece Berlin-based orchestra known as "s t a r g a z e" under conductor André de Ridder.[42][43] Additional licensed music includes "Become Ocean", the Pulitzer Prize and Grammy Award-winning work of John Luther Adams as recorded by the Seattle Symphony with conductor Ludovic Morlot and an excerpt of "Jetsun Mila" from French musician and composer Eliane Radigue.[44] A soundtrack album was released digitally on December 25, 2015, and on CD on January 8, 2016. Milan Records will release a vinyl pressing of the soundtrack in April 2016.[43]

text: The score by Sakamoto and Noto was ruled ineligible for the Academy Award for Best Original Score at the 2016 Oscars as it was deemed that it was "assembled from the music of more than one composer".[45]

text: Documentary[edit]

text: The film was accompanied by a 44-minute documentary, named A World Unseen, highlighting the process of making the production. A World Unseen was released on January 21, 2016, on YouTube; both the date and medium of the documentary's release made it ineligible for the Academy Award for Best Documentary (Short Subject) in the same year as the film nomination.[46][47]

text: Themes[edit]

text: In the Los Angeles Review of Books, film critic Wai Chee Dimock compared The Revenant's themes to those addressed in the literary works of James Fenimore Cooper, particularly The Last of the Mohicans. Dimock argues that the film re-interprets the concept of "half-breeds" from a derogatory idea that Cooper despised to an aesthetic way in which to see the world. She compared both works' protagonists—Glass and Hawk-eye—as literary foils, with Glass living an inversion of the latter's biography and perspective.[48]

text: In the documentary of the film titled A World Unseen, Iñárritu has stated that for the main themes of the film he revisits the issues and concerns of intense parental and filial relations, which audiences of his previous films readily recognize as a recurrent theme in his previous work. Regarding the theme of revenge seen throughout The Revenant, Iñárritu has stated that the approach of vengeance seen in the film needs to be significantly tempered by anyone who would want to see vengeance as either an effective or useful moral to be applied in life. In the end, Iñárritu states, there can only be disappointment and lack of fulfillment for anyone who looks to revenge as providing a higher purpose for living or a life defining purpose.[46][47]

text: Historical accuracy[edit]

text: The Guardian reported, "The backstory about Glass’s love for a Pawnee woman is fiction. It has been suggested the real Glass had such a relationship, but there’s no firm evidence—and no evidence that he had any children. ... As for the ending, it has been changed in one significant way: in real life, nobody got killed."[49]

text: American Rifleman reported, "There was no Pawnee wife or children to motivate him, no real cause for revenge, either, as he understood that Jim Bridger and John Fitzgerald honestly thought he was as good as dead. He might have done the same thing if their roles were reversed. The one constant in every telling of the tale until “The Revenant” opened was Hugh Glass wanted his gun back."[50] The reporting about this story indicates that Glass did track down Fitzgerald and demand the rifle's return, which Fitzgerald sullenly complied with.

text: Canadian actor Roy Dupuis was strongly critical of the movie for portraying French-Canadian voyageurs as murderous rapists. Dupuis was originally offered a role as a voyageur, but he rejected it due to perceptions of anti-French bias and historical inaccuracies.[51][52][53][54] According to Allan Greer, the Canada Research Chair in Colonial North America, "generally the American traders had a worse reputation than the Canadians."[51]

text: Iñárritu has made a special point of emphasizing the importance of historical issues of ethnicity approached in the film and reflected in the mixed ethnic background of Hugh Glass's son portrayed in the film (portrayed as half Pawnee by Glass's wife) as relating to his own life and his identification with ethnic concerns. Iñárritu has referred to having encountered constant xenophobia and stated that: "These constant and relentless xenophobic (comments) have been widely spread by the media without shame, embraced and cheered by leaders and communities around the U.S. The foundation of all this is so outrageous that it can easily be minimized as an SNL sketch, a mere entertainment, a joke ... I debated with myself, if I should bring up this uncomfortable subject tonight but in light of the constant and relentless xenophobic comments that have been expressed recently against my Mexican fellows, it is inevitable."[55]

text: The massive pile of bison skulls depicted in the film (based upon a real life photograph from the mid-1870s) is also an anachronism. The slaughter of bison on that scale was not yet underway in the early 1820s.[citation needed] Similarly for the assertion that the "Anglos" had taken the Indians' land, which was not to occur in that part of the country for another 20 years.[citation needed] Trapper John Fitzgerald refers to the area of modern-day Texas as if it is a part of the Union or an aligned territory. However, in 1823 Texas was a sparsely populated (in 1825, Texas had about 3,500 people, with most of Mexican descent[56]) province of Mexico.

text: Native American culture[edit]

text: In order to portray Arikara culture accurately, Iñárritu hired several cultural consultants[57][58] and teamed up with two linguists to provide faithful Arikara and Pawnee language lines for actors.[59] This proved difficult since those languages have no native speakers left.[60] Hikuc, the Pawnee man who helps Glass survive, is played by a Navajo actor.[61]

text: However, in one scene, a Pawnee character rescuing Glass is accompanied by a voiceover in Inupiaq, which is spoken in Arctic Alaska, thousands of miles away and a different language family from Pawnee. The voiceover was a recording of Doreen Nutaaq Simmonds[62] reading a poem from a John Luther Adams recording; the words originally came from an Inuit woman named Uvavnuk, an angakkuq (shaman) and oral poet.[63]

text: Release[edit]

text: The Revenant had a limited release in the United States on December 25, 2015, including Los Angeles—making it eligible for the 88th Academy Awards—before being released nationwide on January 8, 2016.[64][65] The film opened in Australia on January 7, 2016 and in the United Kingdom on January 15, 2016.[66][67] In the Philippines, the film's release date was originally set for January 27, 2016, but it was eventually delayed a week to February 3, 2016.[68][69] Although studios initially chose not to pursue a theatrical release in China, following the film's three wins at the 88th Academy Awards on February 28, 2016, the film was granted a release in China but with several cuts.[70] It was released on March 18, 2016.[27]

text: Home media[edit]

text: The DVD, Blu-ray and 4K Ultra HD Blu-ray were released on April 19, 2016 in the US.[71] Opening sales of the DVD along with on-line streaming orders placed The Revenant as number one in sales at Amazon.[72] Distribution to major rental outlets in the US was done on May 17, 2016.[73]

text: Piracy[edit]

text: On December 20, 2015, less than a week before its release, screener copies of The Revenant and numerous Oscar contenders, including The Hateful Eight, Creed and Straight Outta Compton, were uploaded to many websites. The FBI linked the case to co-CEO Andrew Kosove of Alcon Entertainment. Kosove claimed that he had "never seen this DVD[s]", and that "it never touched his hands."[74] In October 2016, a former 20th Century Fox employee was fined $1.12 million in a separate case for uploading both The Revenant and The Peanuts Movie online.[75]

text: Reception[edit]

text: Box office[edit]

text: The Revenant grossed $183.6 million in the United States and Canada and $349.3 million in other countries for a worldwide total of $533 million, against a production budget of $135 million.[4] Deadline.com calculated the net profit of the film to be $61.6 million, when factoring together all expenses and revenues.[76]

text: In North America, The Revenant opened in limited release on December 25, 2015, and over the weekend grossed $474,560 from four theaters in New York City and Los Angeles ($118,640 per screen), finishing twenty-third at the box office.[77] It was the second-biggest theater average of 2015 behind the $130,000 four-screen debut of Steve Jobs.[78] The film earned a total of $1.6 million from its two-week limited run before expanding wide on January 8, 2016, across 3,371 theaters.[79][80]

text: It made $2.3 million from its early Thursday preview showings from 2,510 theaters.[79] On its opening day, the film earned $14.4 million, ranking first at the box office.[81] The film grossed $39.8 million in its opening weekend from 3,375 theaters, exceeding initial projections by 70%, and finishing second at the box office behind Star Wars: The Force Awakens ($42.4 million), which was on its fourth weekend of play. It was the director’s biggest opening of all-time, and the fourth-biggest for DiCaprio and supporting actor Tom Hardy.[82] Critics noted that The Force Awakens had an advantage, considering that it was playing at 781 more theaters, that Sunday matinees are family-friendly, and since it had the benefit of playing in all North American IMAX theaters.[82] Nevertheless, The Revenant played very balanced across the U.S. and overperformed in all states except the Northeast region.[82] Its wide release weekend is among the top openings in the month of January.[83] It finally topped the box office in its fifth weekend overall and third weekend in wide release after competing with Ride Along 2 in its second weekend. It added a $16 million in its third weekend, which was down 49.7% but topped the box office, despite a blizzard blanketing most of the East Coast which reportedly hurt many films' box office performance.[84][85][86][87] The following weekend it was overtaken by Fox’s own animated movie Kung Fu Panda 3 thereby topping the box office for just one weekend.[88] Following the announcement of the Oscar nominees on January 14, The Revenant witnessed the biggest boost among the Best Picture category, jumping from $54.1 million to $170.5 million, an increase of +215% up to the Oscar ceremony in the weekend ending February 28.[89]

text: Outside North America, the film secured a release in 78 countries.[90] It made $20.5 million from 2,407 screens in just 18 markets, placing behind The Force Awakens at the international box office chart and first among newly released films.[91] The following weekend, it added $32.3 million from 25 markets on 4,849 screens.[90] The film topped the international box office in its third weekend—the same weekend when it topped the U.S. box office—overtaking The Force Awakens with $33.7 million from 48 markets.[92] In the United Kingdom and Ireland, it took the No. 1 spot with $7.87 million or £5.2 million ($7.4 million) from 589 theaters and remained there for a second weekend declining only by 24% with £3.86 million ($5.5 million), as well as for a third weekend.[90][93][94][95][96] Similarly, in Russia, it passed The Force Awakens to take the top spot with $7.5 million from 1,063 screens.[91] In France, it has the biggest opening day in Paris and the third biggest opening weekend of 2016 (so far) with $8.2 million.[97] It also opened at No. 1 in Mexico ($5.1 million), Spain ($4 million), Holland ($1.3 million), Belgium ($1.1 million), Argentina ($955,000), Sweden ($914,000), South Korea, Denmark, Norway, Israel, Egypt and Portugal among other markets.[90][92][95][98] In Germany ($4.6 million) and Australia ($2.9 million), it debuted at No. 2 both behind The Force Awakens and in Brazil ($2.17 million) behind The Ten Commandments.[91][98] It had one of the top ten openings of all time for a Fox film, not accounting for inflation in South Korea with $5.7 million and went on to top the box office there for a second weekend with $3.22 million despite cold weather affecting theater attendance resulting in low box office performance.[99][100] In Russia, despite not opening at No. 1, it topped the box office in its second weekend with $4.4 million—more than The Force Awakens—and went on to top for a third weekend with $3.6 million.[90][101] In China it had an opening day of around $11 million from more than 11,000 screens, including $250,000 in midnight previews, and $23 million in two days.[102][103][104] In its opening weekend, it grossed $31 million, coming in second place behind the animated Zootopia. IMAX comprised $2.3 million on 278 screens.[105] In terms of total earnings, its largest markets outside of the U.S. and Canada are China ($58.6 million), the United Kingdom ($32.8 million), Germany ($28.7 million) and France ($28.2 million).[106][107] The film opened in Japan on March 23.[97][108]

text: Critical response[edit]

text: The Revenant received positive reviews from critics, with DiCaprio and Hardy's performances, Iñárritu's directing and Lubezki's cinematography all being praised.[109][110][111][111] However, the film's runtime was criticized.[112] On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 80%, based on 349 reviews, with an average rating of 7.9/10. The website's critical consensus reads: "As starkly beautiful as it is harshly uncompromising, The Revenant uses Leonardo DiCaprio's committed performance as fuel for an absorbing drama that offers punishing challenges — and rich rewards."[113] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 76 out of 100, based on 50 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[114] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B+" on an A+ to F scale, while PostTrak reported audiences gave it an overall positive score of 85% and a 59% "definite recommend".[115][116][117]

text: Reviewers cited in a CBS News survey of critics highly praised DiCaprio's performance, referring to it as an "astonishing testament to his commitment to a role" and as an "anchoring performance of ferocious 200 percent commitment."[110] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone called DiCaprio's acting "a virtuoso performance, thrilling in its brute force and silent eloquence."[118] Writing for NY Magazine/Vulture, David Edelstein called the film a "tour de force" and "[b]leak as hell but considerably more beautiful," but noted the film had "traditional masculinity instead of a search for what illuminates man's inhumanity to man."

text: Justin Chang of Variety wrote Iñárritu "increasingly succumbs to the air of grim overdetermination that has marred much of [his] past work" and it was "an imposing vision... but also an inflated and emotionally stunted one."[110] Stephanie Zacharek, writing for TIME magazine, gave a positive review to the film stating: "Inarritu may have fashioned The Revenant as the ultimate endurance test, but as Glass, DiCaprio simply endures. He gives the movie a beating heart, offering it up, figuratively speaking, alive and bloody on a platter. It—he—is the most visceral effect in the movie: revenge served warm. Bon Appetite."[109] Richard Brody of The New Yorker was critical of the film, and said that Emmanuel Lubezki's images were mere "pictorial ornament[s] to [Alejandro González Iñárritu's] bland theatrical stagings.”[119]

text: Slant Magazine's writer Ed Gonzalez suggested that the Slant staff in large part disliked the film: "Our contempt for The Revenant knows no limits."[119] Gonzalez unfavorably compared Iñárritu's work to Terrence Malick's 2005 film The New World. In the official review, Slant writer Jaime N. Christley wrote: "The Revenant [is] a misery-fest that plants its narrative flags as carelessly as a Roland Emmerich blockbuster, guaranteeing us a viewing experience almost as arduous as the trials depicted on screen, before reaching a conclusion that's sealed the moment audiences first meet the key players. After an obligatory false calm, The Revenant's proper opening scene is a show-stopping massacre at a fur-trapper's campsite. It's the kind of thing Howard Hawks would have handled—and did, in The Big Sky—in under 90 seconds, with mostly off-camera particulars and minimal effects, but González Iñárritu forces it to resemble the Normandy Beach sequence in Saving Private Ryan as much as history or sense will allow, and then some."[120] The Revenant was ranked 22nd on Metacritic's and 79th on Rotten Tomatoes' list of best films of 2015.[121][122][123]

text: Accolades[edit]

text: The Revenant has received numerous award nominations and wins, particularly for DiCaprio's performance, Iñárritu's direction and Lubezki's cinematography. At the 88th Annual Academy Awards, Iñárritu won the Best Director award for the second time in a row, Emmanuel Lubezki won for the third time in a row the award for Best Cinematography and DiCaprio won his first award for Best Actor. Hardy lost the award for Best Supporting Actor to Mark Rylance for Bridge of Spies, and the film itself lost Best Picture to Spotlight.[124]

text: At the 73rd Golden Globe Awards it won three awards: Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director, and Best Actor – Drama. It also had a nomination for Best Original Score.[125] On January 14, 2016, the film received 12 Academy Award nominations (more than any other film at the ceremony), including Best Picture and Best Director for Iñárritu, as well as Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, for DiCaprio and Hardy, respectively.[126] On February 14, 2016, the film received the most awards at 69th British Academy Film Awards out of eight-nominations, with five, including Best Film, Best Director, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, and Best Leading Actor.[127] It received nine Critics' Choice Awards nominations, winning two – for DiCaprio as Best Actor and Best Cinematography for Lubezki.[128]

text: Tom Hardy won the Best British Actor award at the London Film Critics' Circle and was runner-up for Best Supporting Actor at Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association.[129][130] DiCaprio was awarded Outstanding Performance by a Male Actor in a Leading Role award at 22nd Screen Actors Guild Awards, while Iñárritu received Outstanding Directing – Feature Film award at 68th Directors Guild of America Awards.[131] It received five Satellite Awards nominations, winning the award of Best Actor for DiCaprio.[132]

text: On May 2, 2016, Time magazine included both DiCaprio and Iñárritu in its issue of the 100 Most Influential People of 2015, with a cover photograph of DiCaprio on the magazine. John Kerry, the U.S. Secretary of State, wrote a short testimonial to DiCaprio for this issue of Time stating that DiCaprio's dedication drives him to succeed and "that's how he takes himself back 200 years to create an Oscar-winning, bear-brawling, powerhouse performance in The Revenant."[133]


document_title: Minority governments in Canada

question_text: when was the last minority government in canada

root

text: Minority governments in Canada

text: This is the current revision of this page, as edited by 50.64.109.31 (talk) at 17:05, 13 July 2017 (→Provincial and territorial level:  BC present minority government). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

tag: table

text: In Canada's parliamentary system of responsible government, minority governments occur when no party has a majority of seats in the legislature. Typically, but not necessarily, the party with a plurality of seats forms the government. In a minority situation, governments must rely on the support of other parties to stay in power, providing less stability than a majority government. In Canada, political parties rarely form official coalition governments to form a majority.

text: Canada's plurality voting system means that minority governments are relatively rare in comparison with countries that have a proportional representation voting system. There have, however, been several minority governments at the federal level and in nine of Canada's 10 provinces at various times.

text: Federal level[edit]

text: Canada has had 13 minority governments, most recently experiencing its longest period of minority government with three successive minority governments between 2004 and 2011.

text:
Alexander Mackenzie (1873–1874, Liberal)
William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921–25, 1925–26, Liberal)
Arthur Meighen (1926, Conservative)
John Diefenbaker (1957–58, 1962–63, Progressive Conservative)
Lester Pearson (1963–65, 1965–68, Liberal)
Pierre Trudeau (1972–74, Liberal)
Joe Clark (1979–80, Progressive Conservative)
Paul Martin (2004–06, Liberal)
Stephen Harper (2006–08, 2008–11, Conservative)

text: Provincial and territorial level[edit]

text: Of Canada's 10 provinces, only Alberta has never had a minority government. The territories of Northwest Territories and Nunavut do not have political parties and are instead governed under the consensus government system.

text:
British Columbia (1924–28, 1952–53, 2017-present)
Manitoba (1936–41, 1958–59, 1969–73, 1988–90)
New Brunswick (1920–25)
Newfoundland and Labrador (1971–72)
Nova Scotia (1970–74, 1998–99, 2003–06, 2006–09)
Ontario (1867–71, 1943–45, 1975–77, 1977–81, 1985–87, 2011–14)
Quebec (1878–79, 2007–08, 2012–14)
Prince Edward Island (1873–76, 1876–79, 1890–93)
Saskatchewan (1929–34, 1999–2003)
Yukon (1985–89, 1992–96)

text: Bibliography[edit]

text: Minority Government, by D. Kwavnick

text:
This Canadian government–related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

v
t
e

text: Politics of CanadaMinority governmentsCanada government stubs

text: All stub articles


document_title: Juries in the United States

question_text: the right to a jury trial appears in which amendment to the u.s. constitution

text: Juries in the United States

text: History[edit]

text: The U.S. Declaration of Independence accused George III of "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."

text: Article III of the U.S. Constitution states that all trials shall be by jury. The right was expanded with the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states in part, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed," and the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a jury trial in civil cases.

text: The U.S. Supreme Court noted the importance of the jury right in its 1968 ruling of Duncan v. Louisiana. In Duncan, the Court said:

text: Federal jury trial rights[edit]

text: Criminal juries[edit]

text: Grand jury[edit]

text: A grand jury decides whether or not there is enough evidence ("probable cause") that a person has committed a crime in order to put him or her on trial. If a grand jury decides there is enough evidence, the person is indicted. A grand jury has 16-23 members, and its proceedings are not open to the public. Unlike with a petit jury, the defendant is not allowed to appear before a grand jury.[3]

text: Petit jury[edit]

text: A petit jury, also known as a trial jury, is the standard type of jury used in criminal cases in the United States. Petit juries are responsible for deciding whether or not a defendant is guilty of violating the law in a specific case. They consist of 6-12 people and their deliberations are private. Their decision is known as a verdict and decides whether a person is guilty or not guilty.[3]

text: Scope of constitutional right[edit]

text: Currently in the United States every person accused of a crime punishable by incarceration for more than six months has a constitutional right to a trial by jury, which arises in federal court from the Sixth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment, and Article Three of the United States Constitution, which states in part, "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed". Most states' constitutions also grant the right of trial by jury in lesser criminal matters, though most have eliminated that right in offenses punishable by fine only. The Supreme Court has ruled that if imprisonment is for six months or less, trial by jury is not required,[4] meaning a state may choose whether or not to permit trial by jury in such cases.

text: Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that no offense can be deemed 'petty' for purposes of the right to trial by jury where imprisonment for more than six months is authorized. Justice Black and Justice Douglas concurred, stating that they would have required a jury trial in all criminal proceedings in which the sanction imposed bears the indicia of criminal punishment. Chief Justice Burger, Justice Harlan and Justice Stewart objected to setting this limitation at six months for the States, preferring to give them greater leeway.[4][5] No jury trial was required when the trial judge suspended sentence and placed defendant on probation for three years.[6] There is a presumption that offenses carrying a maximum imprisonment of six months or less are petty, although it is possible that such long an offense could be pushed into the serious category if the legislature tacks on onerous penalties not involving incarceration. No jury trial is required, however, when the maximum sentence is six months in jail, a fine not to exceed $1,000, a 90-day driver's license suspension, and attendance at an alcohol abuse education course. The Supreme Court found that the disadvantages of such a sentence, "onerous though they may be, may be outweighed by the benefits that result from speedy and inexpensive nonjury adjudications."[7] Such interpretations have been criticized on the grounds that "all" is not a word that constitution-makers use lightly.[8]

text: In the case of traffic offenses punishable by fine only (including parking tickets), and misdemeanor charges providing for imprisonment of six months or less, the availability of trial by jury varies from state to state, usually providing only for bench trials. The two exceptions are Vermont and Virginia, which provide the defendant with the right to a jury trial in all cases, which means if one is willing to pay the cost in case of a loss, one may even obtain a jury trial for a parking ticket in those states. In Virginia, one wanting a jury trial on a minor misdemeanor or traffic offense would actually have a right to two trials if they wanted a jury trial on the issue, first by bench trial only in District court, and then, if they lost, to a trial de novo in Circuit court, this time with a jury if they chose to do so.

text: Many juvenile court systems do not recognize a right to jury trial, on the grounds that juvenile proceedings are civil rather than criminal, and that jury trials would cause the process to become adversarial.[9]

text: Sentencing[edit]

text: In the cases Apprendi v. New Jersey,[10] and Blakely v. Washington,[11] the Supreme Court of the United States held that a criminal defendant has a right to a jury trial not only on the question of guilt or innocence, but any fact used to increase the defendant's sentence beyond the maximum otherwise allowed by statutes or sentencing guidelines. This invalidated the procedure in many states and the federal courts that allowed sentencing enhancement based on "a preponderance of evidence", where enhancement could be based on the judge's findings alone. Depending upon the state a jury must be unanimous for either a guilty or not guilty decision. In the event of a hung jury, charges against the defendant are not dropped and can be reinstated if the state so chooses. In the federal system, a unanimous verdict is required.[12]

text: Waiver[edit]

text: The vast majority of U.S. criminal cases are not concluded with a jury verdict, but rather by plea bargain. Both prosecutors and defendants often have a strong interest in resolving the criminal case by negotiation resulting in a plea bargain. If the defendant waives a jury trial, a bench trial is held. Research indicates there is not a consistent difference between penalties handed down in jury trials and those handed down in bench trials.[13]

text: In United States Federal courts, there is no absolute right to waive a jury trial.[14] Per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23(a), only if the prosecution and the court consent may a defendant have a waiver of jury trial.[15] However, most states give the defendant the absolute right to waive a jury trial. The right to a jury trial is exclusively that of the criminal defendant; where one has the right to waive a jury trial, and does so, the prosecution cannot ask for one. In Patton v. United States,[16] one of the jurors became incapacitated and counsel for the defendant and the government agreed to continue with 11 jurors. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was acceptable if the prosecution and the court, as well as the defendant, agreed to this procedure.

text: Civil juries[edit]

text: Seventh Amendment[edit]

text: The right to trial by jury in a civil case is addressed by the 7th Amendment, which provides: "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."[17] Although the civil jury (unlike the criminal jury) has fallen into disuse in much of the rest of the world, including England, it remains in high esteem in the United States. In Joseph Story's 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, he wrote, "[I]t is a most important and valuable amendment; and places upon the high ground of constitutional right the inestimable privilege of a trial by jury in civil cases, a privilege scarcely inferior to that in criminal cases, which is conceded by all to be essential to political and civil liberty." Nearly every state constitution contains a similar guarantee.[18]

text: The 7th Amendment does not create any right to a jury trial; rather, it "preserves" the right to jury trial that existed in 1791 at common law.[19] In this context, common law means the legal environment the United States inherited from England at the time. In England in 1791, civil actions were divided into actions at law and actions in equity. Actions at law had a right to a jury, actions in equity did not.

text: The decision in Rachal v. Hill,[20] indicated that 7th Amendment right to jury trial may severely limit developments in the principles of res judicata.[20] Some critics believe that the United States has more trial by jury than is necessary or desirable.[21]

text: The right to a jury trial is determined based upon the a demand in the complaint brought by a Plaintiff, without regard to the defenses or counterclaims asserted by a defendant.

text: The right to a jury trial in civil cases does not extend to the states, except when a state court is enforcing a federally created right, of which the right to trial by jury is a substantial part.[22]

text: It has been suggested that in complex litigation, the jury's inability to comprehend the issues may cause the 7th Amendment right to conflict with due process rights and authorize the judge to strike the jury.[23]

text: The right to trial by jury in bankruptcy cases has been described as unclear.[24]

text: In Colgrove v. Battin,[25] the Supreme Court held that a civil jury of six members did not violate the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in a civil case.

text: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure[edit]

text: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2 says "[t]here is one form of action - the civil action[,]" which abolishes the legal/equity distinction. Today, in actions that would have been "at law" in 1791, there is a right to a jury; in actions that would have been "in equity" in 1791, there is no right to a jury. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c) allows a court to use one at its discretion. To determine whether the action would have been legal or equitable in 1791, one must first look at the type of action and whether such an action was considered "legal" or "equitable" in 1791. Next, the relief being sought must be examined. Monetary damages alone were purely a legal remedy, and thus entitled to a jury. Non-monetary remedies such as injunctions, rescission, and specific performance were all equitable remedies, and thus up to the judge's discretion, not a jury. In Beacon Theaters v. Westover,[26] the U.S. Supreme Court discussed the right to a jury, holding that when both equitable and legal claims are brought, the right to a jury trial still exists for the legal claim, which would be decided by a jury before the judge ruled on the equitable claim.

text: Following the English tradition, U.S. juries have usually been composed of 12 jurors, and the jury's verdict has usually been required to be unanimous. However, in many jurisdictions, the number of jurors is often reduced to a lesser number (such as five or six) by legislative enactment, or by agreement of both sides. Some jurisdictions also permit a verdict to be returned despite the dissent of one, two, or three jurors.[citation needed] Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 states that a federal civil jury must begin with at least 6 and no more than 12 members, and that the verdict must be unanimous unless the parties stipulate otherwise.[27]

text: Waiver[edit]

text: Alternative dispute resolution is becoming increasingly common.[28] Mandatory binding arbitration has been used by some parties to prevent the 7th Amendment right to a civil jury trial from being invoked.[29] Arbitration agreements are becoming increasingly common in the marketplace, to the point at which it is becoming difficult for consumers to purchase products without waiving their right to settle disputes arising out of the transaction by jury trial.[30] It has been argued that arbitration clauses should be held to a higher "knowing-consent" standard in order to be upheld.[31]

text: Jury selection[edit]

text: Jurors in some states are selected through voter registration and drivers' license lists. A form is sent to prospective jurors to pre-qualify them by asking the recipient to answer questions about citizenship, disabilities, ability to understand the English language, and whether they have any conditions that would excuse them from being a juror. If they are deemed qualified, a summons is issued. In the federal system, jurors are selected in accordance with the Jury Selection Act.

text: Criticism[edit]

text: It has been proposed that the federal civil jury system be abolished in order to clean up the backlog of cases, keep court calendars current, and obtain better and more efficient administration of justice.[32] Research indicates that while civil trials may proceed more slowly before a jury, judge-tried cases last longer on the docket.[33]

text: Proposals to abolish the jury system have been criticized on the grounds that only reform, not abolition, is necessary; and that there is no better alternative system.[34] Juror ignorance has been described as a potential threat to justice; for instance, one study found that 50% of jurors surveyed thought that it was up to the defendant to prove his innocence.[35] The growing use of administrative procedures and of the contempt power to enforce law has been cited as evidence that trial by jury is facing a period of critical re-examination.[36]

text: Some legal journals have speculated that jury trials encourage harsh punishment in the United States.[37]


document_title: Going concern

question_text: indicators that a company is not a going concern

text: Going concern

text: Definition[edit]

text: The going concern assumption is universally understood and accepted by accounting professionals; however, it has never been formally incorporated into U.S GAAP.[1] In October 2008, FASB issued an Exposure Draft called "Going Concern." It discusses the following possible pronouncements for the going concern:

text:
Reconsideration of defining and incorporating the terms going concern and substantial doubt into U.S. GAAP
The time horizon over which management would evaluate the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
The type of information that management should consider in evaluating the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
The effect of subsequent events on management’s evaluation of the entity’s ability to meet its obligations
Whether to provide guidance on the liquidation basis of accounting .

text: A current definition of the going concern assumption can be found in the AICPA Statement on Auditing Standards No.1 Codification of Auditing Standards and Procedures, Section 341, “ The Auditor’s Consideration of an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern”(AU Section 341). The 'going concern' concept assumes that the business will remain in existence long enough for all the assets of the business to be fully utilized. Utilized assets means obtaining the complete benefit from their earning potential. (i.e. if you recently purchased equipment costing $5,000 that had 5 years of productive/useful life, then under the going concern assumption, the accountant would only write off one year's value $1,000 (1/5th) this year, leaving $4,000 to be treated as a fixed asset with future economic value for the business).

text: Accounting[edit]

text: This accounting principle assumes that, a company will continue to exist long enough to carry out its objectives and commitments and will not liquidate in the foreseeable future. If the company's financial situation is such that the accountant believes the company will not be able to continue on, the accountant is required to disclose this assessment.

text: The going concern principle allows the company to defer some of its prepaid expenses until future accounting periods.[2] The going concern assumption is a fundamental assumption in the preparation of financial statements. Under the going concern assumption, an entity is ordinarily viewed as continuing in business for the foreseeable future with neither the intention nor the necessity of liquidation, ceasing trading or seeking protection from creditors pursuant to laws or regulations. Accordingly, unless the going concern assumption is inappropriate in the circumstances of the entity, assets and liabilities are recorded on the basis that the entity will be able to realize its assets, discharge its liabilities, and obtain refinancing (if necessary) in the normal course of business.[3]

text: An entity is assumed to be a going concern in the absence of significant information to the contrary. An example of such contrary information is an entity’s inability to meet its obligations as they come due without substantial asset sales or debt restructurings. If such were not the case, an entity would essentially be acquiring assets with the intention of closing its operations and reselling the assets to another party.[4]

text: If the accountant believes that an entity may no longer be a going concern, then this brings up the issue of whether its assets are impaired, which may call for the write-down of their carrying amount to their liquidation value, and/or the recognition of liabilities that arise on account of the entity's imminent closure (which may not arise otherwise). Thus, the value of an entity that is assumed to be a going concern is higher than its breakup value, since a going concern can potentially continue to earn profits.

text: The going concern concept is not clearly defined anywhere in generally accepted accounting principles, and so is subject to a considerable amount of interpretation regarding when an entity should report it. However, generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) do instruct an auditor regarding the consideration of an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.

text: The auditor evaluates an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period not less than one year following the date of the financial statements being audited (a longer period may be considered if the auditor believes such extended period to be relevant). The auditor considers such items as negative trends in operating results, loan defaults, denial of trade credit from suppliers uneconomical long-term commitments, and legal proceedings in deciding if there is a substantial doubt about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. If so, the auditor must draw attention to the uncertainty regarding the entity's ability to continue as a going concern, in their auditor's report. On the other hand, inappropriate use of the going concern assumption by an entity may cause the auditor to issue an adverse opinion on the financial statements.[5] This Guidance provides a framework to assist directors, audit committees and finance teams in determining whether it is appropriate to adopt the going concern basis for preparing financial statements and in making balanced, proportionate and clear disclosures. Separate standards and guidance have been issued by the Auditing Practices Board to address the work of auditors in relation to going concern.

text: Assumption[edit]

text: Under the going concern assumption, an entity is viewed as continuing in business for the foreseeable future. General purpose financial statements are prepared on a going concern basis, unless management either intends to liquidate the entity or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so. Special purpose financial statements may or may not be prepared in accordance with a financial reporting framework for which the going concern basis is relevant (for example, the going concern basis is not relevant for some financial statements prepared on a tax basis in particular jurisdictions). When the use of the going concern assumption is appropriate, assets and liabilities are recorded on the basis that the entity will be able to realize its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business.[6]

text: Auditing[edit]

text: Continuation of an entity as a going concern is assumed in financial reporting in the absence of significant information to the contrary. Ordinarily, information that significantly contradicts the going concern assumption relates to the entity's inability to continue to meet its obligations as they become due without substantial disposition of assets outside the ordinary course of business, restructuring of debt, externally forced revisions of its operations, or similar actions.

text: Responsibilities[edit]

text: The auditor has a responsibility to evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year beyond the date of the financial statements being audited (hereinafter referred to as a reasonable period of time). The auditor's evaluation is based on his or her knowledge of relevant conditions and events that exist at or have occurred prior to the date of the auditor's report. Information about such conditions or events is obtained from the application of auditing procedures planned and performed to achieve audit objectives that are related to management's assertions embodied in the financial statements being audited, as described in Auditing Standard No. 15, Audit Evidence.

text: The auditor should evaluate whether there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time in the following manner:

text: The auditor considers whether the results of his procedures performed in planning, gathering evidential matter relative to the various audit objectives, and completing the audit identify conditions and events that, when considered in the aggregate, indicate there could be substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. It may be necessary to obtain additional information about such conditions and events, as well as the appropriate evidential matter to support information that mitigates the auditor's doubt.

text: If the auditor believes there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, he should[7] obtain information about management's plans that are intended to mitigate the effect of such conditions or events, and[8] assess the likelihood that such plans can be effectively implemented.

text: After the auditor has evaluated management's plans, he concludes whether he has substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. If the auditor concludes there is substantial doubt, he should consider[9] the adequacy of disclosure about the entity's possible inability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time,[10] and include an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) in his audit report to reflect his conclusion. If the auditor concludes that substantial doubt does not exist, he should consider the need for disclosure.

text: The auditor is not responsible for predicting future conditions or events. The fact that the entity may cease to exist as a going concern subsequent to receiving a report from the auditor that does not refer to substantial doubt, even within one year following the date of the financial statements, does not, in itself, indicate inadequate performance by the auditor. Accordingly, the absence of reference to substantial doubt in an auditor's report should not be viewed as providing assurance as to an entity's ability to continue as a going concern.

text: Procedures[edit]

text: It is not necessary to design audit procedures solely to identify conditions and events that, when considered in the aggregate, indicate there could be substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. The results of auditing procedures designed and performed to achieve other audit objectives should be sufficient for that purpose. The following are examples of procedures that may identify such conditions and events:

text:
Analytical procedures
Review of subsequent events
Review of compliance with the terms of debt and loan agreements
Reading of minutes of meetings of stockholders, board of directors, and important committees of the board
Inquiry of an entity's legal counsel about litigation, claims, and assessments
Confirmation with related and third parties of the details of arrangements to provide or maintain financial support

text: Conditions and events[edit]

text: In performing audit procedures such as those presented in paragraph .05, the auditor may identify information about certain conditions or events that, when considered in the aggregate, indicate there could be substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time. The significance of such conditions and events will depend on the circumstances, and some may have significance only when viewed in conjunction with others. The following are examples of such conditions and events:

text: Negative trends—for example, recurring operating losses, working capital deficiencies, negative cash flows from operating activities, adverse key financial ratios

text: Other indications of possible financial difficulties—for example, default on loan or similar agreements, arrearages in dividends, denial of usual trade credit from suppliers, restructuring of debt, noncompliance with statutory capital requirements, need to seek new sources or methods of financing or to dispose of substantial assets

text: Internal matters—for example, work stoppages or other labor difficulties, substantial dependence on the success of a particular project, uneconomic long-term commitments, need to significantly revise operations

text: External matters that have occurred—for example, legal proceedings, legislation, or similar matters that might jeopardize an entity's ability to operate; loss of a key franchise, license, or patent; loss of a principal customer or supplier; uninsured or underinsured catastrophe such as a drought, earthquake, or flood.

text: Managements plans[edit]

text: If, after considering the identified conditions and events in the aggregate, the auditor believes there is substantial doubt about the ability of the entity to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, he should consider management's plans for dealing with the adverse effects of the conditions and events. The auditor should obtain information about the plans and consider whether it is likely the adverse effects will be mitigated for a reasonable period of time and that such plans can be effectively implemented. The auditor's considerations relating to management plans may include the following:

text: Plans to dispose of assets

text:
Restrictions on disposal of assets, such as covenants limiting such transactions in loan or similar agreements or encumbrances against assets
Apparent marketability of assets that management plans to sell
Possible direct or indirect effects of disposal of assets

text: Plans to borrow money or restructure debt

text:
Availability of debt financing, including existing or committed credit arrangements, such as lines of credit or arrangements for factoring receivables or sale-leaseback of assets
Existing or committed arrangements to restructure or subordinate debt or to guarantee loans to the entity
Possible effects on management's borrowing plans of existing restrictions on additional borrowing or the sufficiency of available collateral

text: Plans to reduce or delay expenditures

text:
Apparent feasibility of plans to reduce overhead or administrative expenditures, to postpone maintenance or research and development projects, or to lease rather than purchase assets
Possible direct or indirect effects of reduced or delayed expenditures

text: Plans to increase ownership equity

text:
Apparent feasibility of plans to increase ownership equity, including existing or committed arrangements to raise additional capital
Existing or committed arrangements to reduce current dividend requirements or to accelerate cash distributions from affiliates or other investors

text: When evaluating management's plans, the auditor should identify those elements that are particularly significant to overcoming the adverse effects of the conditions and events and should plan and perform auditing procedures to obtain evidential matter about them. For example, the auditor should consider the adequacy of support regarding the ability to obtain additional financing or the planned disposal of assets.

text: When prospective financial information is particularly significant to management's plans, the auditor should request management to provide that information and should consider the adequacy of support for significant assumptions underlying that information. The auditor should give particular attention to assumptions that are—

text:
Material to the prospective financial information.
Especially sensitive or susceptible to change.
Inconsistent with historical trends.

text: The auditor's consideration should be based on knowledge of the entity, its business, and its management and should include (a) reading of the prospective financial information and the underlying assumptions and (b) comparing prospective financial information in prior periods with actual results and comparing prospective information for the current period with results achieved to date. If the auditor becomes aware of factors, the effects of which are not reflected in such prospective financial information, he should discuss those factors with management and, if necessary, request revision of the prospective financial information.

text: Financial statement effects[edit]

text: When, after considering management's plans, the auditor concludes there is substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time, the auditor should consider the possible effects on the financial statements and the adequacy of the related disclosure. Some of the information that might be disclosed includes—

text:
Pertinent conditions and events giving rise to the assessment of substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
The possible effects of such conditions and events.
Management's evaluation of the significance of those conditions and events and any mitigating factors.
Possible discontinuance of operations.
Management's plans (including relevant prospective financial information). fn 3
Information about the recoverability or classification of recorded asset amounts or the amounts or classification of liabilities.

text: When, primarily because of the auditor's consideration of management's plans, he concludes that substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time is alleviated, he should consider the need for disclosure of the principal conditions and events that initially caused him to believe there was substantial doubt. The auditor's consideration of disclosure should include the possible effects of such conditions and events, and any mitigating factors, including management's plans.

text: Effects on the auditor's report[edit]

text: If, after considering identified conditions and events and management's plans, the auditor concludes that substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time remains, the audit report should include an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) to reflect that conclusion. fn 4 (?) The auditor's conclusion about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern should be expressed through the use of the phrase "substantial doubt about its (the entity's) ability to continue as a going concern" [or similar wording that includes the terms substantial doubt and going concern] as illustrated in paragraph .13. [As amended, effective for reports issued after December 31, 1990, by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 64.]

text: An example follows of an explanatory paragraph (following the opinion paragraph) in the auditor's report describing an uncertainty about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.

text: The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note X to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from operations and has a net capital deficiency that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note X. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

text: If the auditor concludes that the entity's disclosures with respect to the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time are inadequate, a departure from generally accepted accounting principles exists. This may result in either a qualified (except for) or an adverse opinion. Reporting guidance for such situations is provided in section 508, Reports on Audited Financial Statements.

text: Substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time that arose in the current period does not imply that a basis for such doubt existed in the prior period and, therefore, should not affect the auditor's report on the financial statements of the prior period that are presented on a comparative basis. When financial statements of one or more prior periods are presented on a comparative basis with financial statements of the current period, reporting guidance is provided in section 508.

text: If substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time existed at the date of prior period financial statements that are presented on a comparative basis, and that doubt has been removed in the current period, the explanatory paragraph included in the auditor's report (following the opinion paragraph) on the financial statements of the prior period should not be repeated.

text: Exceptions[edit]

text: Because the issuance of a going-concern opinion is feared to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, auditors may be reluctant to issue one. A going-concern opinion may lower stockholders’ and creditors’ confidence in the company; ratings agencies may then downgrade the debt, leading to an inability to obtain new capital and an increase in the cost of existing capital. In 1978, the AICPA formed an independent commission (the Cohen Commission) that issued a report expressing this sentiment:

text: Creditors often regard a subject to qualification as a separate reason for not granting a loan, a reason in addition to the circumstances creating the uncertainty that caused the qualification. This frequently puts the auditor in the position, in effect, of deciding whether a company is able to obtain the funds it needs to continue operating. Thus, the auditor’s qualification tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The auditor’s expression of uncertainty about the company’s ability to continue may contribute to making it a certainty.

text: The fear is that a going-concern opinion can hasten the demise of an already troubled company, reduce a loan officer’s willingness to grant a line of credit to that troubled company, or increase the point spread that would be charged if that company were granted a loan. Auditors are placed at the center of a moral and ethical dilemma: whether to issue a going-concern opinion and risk escalating the financial distress of their client, or not issue a going-concern opinion and risk not informing interested parties of the possible failure of the company. The hope is that issuing a going-concern opinion might promote timelier rescue activity.

text: Another, more troubling reason that auditors might fail to issue a going-concern opinion has been alluded to by the mainstream media in the WorldCom and Enron business failures: lack of auditor independence. Management determines the auditor’s tenure and remuneration. The threat of receiving a going-concern modification may send management to another auditor, in a phenomenon referred to as “opinion shopping.” Moreover, in an extreme case of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if the client does go bankrupt, the auditor loses future audit fees. This fear of losing future fees could compromise the auditor’s ability to render an unbiased opinion on a client’s financial statements.

text: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 made it much more difficult for a plaintiff to bring suit successfully against a company’s auditors. While the act did codify as law the reporting requirements of SAS 59, it also made it more difficult for a plaintiff’s attorneys to successfully pursue class-action litigation against auditors. Furthermore, in cases where auditors did fail to modify their audit opinions in accordance with SAS 59, the damage awards were limited to proportionate liability. When comparing the potential costs of issuing a going-concern opinion (hastening the demise of the client; losing audit fees) to the costs of not issuing a going-concern opinion (litigation), the result of the act was essentially to tip the scales in favor of not issuing a going-concern opinion. Since the act was passed, high-profile litigation citing the auditors’ failure to issue a going-concern opinion, such as the class-action lawsuits by Kmart’s shareholders against PricewaterhouseCoopers, and Adelphia’s against Deloitte & Touche, has been drastically reduced.

text: The most critical reason that auditors might fail to issue a going-concern opinion, however, could be a fundamental misunderstanding of the assumption itself.

text: Use in risk management[edit]

text: If a public company and a private company report that its auditors have doubts about its ability to continue as a going concern, investors may take that as a sign of increased risk, although an emphasis of matter paragraph in an audit report does not necessarily indicate that a company is on the verge of insolvency.[11] Despite this, some fund managers may be required to sell the stock to maintain an appropriate level of risk in their portfolios. A negative judgment may also result in the breach of bank loan covenants or lead a debt rating firm to lower the rating on the company's debt, making the cost of existing debt increase and/or preventing the company from obtaining additional debt financing. Because of such responses to expressed concerns by auditors, in the 1970s, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' Cohen commission concluded that an auditor's expression of uncertainty about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern "tends to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The auditor's expression of uncertainty about the company's ability to continue may contribute to making its failure a certainty."[12] Businesses should also communicate with business advisors as well as their auditors in the time of trouble. Communication can let advisors and auditors help when needed. They can help business review their internal risk management along with other internal controls.